Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Anonymous, May 4, 2012.
Oh wow, N-bombs. You're so edgy.
I was merely trying to point out that both presidents were niggers. Hence the use of it twice.
Don't be racist.
It's an edgy thread Herro, get used to it.
Still, our last two presidents have nothing on the future king of of the United Kingdom. You could park an aircraft carrier on Prince Charles' ears.
Specifically, the TSA sexually assaults people in airports every day, people's personal belongings are held at the border without cause and without a warrant, and the government has a history of dirty tricks, such as COINTELPRO, against people who are effective at exercising their 1st Amendment rights. They've even pulled some shit on Bradley Manning's friends and family. There are good people in the government. I've been helped by them, and I appreciate it. That said, trusting in the benevolence of government is dumb when too much evidence points to that trust being misplaced.
In 1776, today's TSA agents would have been shot dead. Not condoning or suggesting it, just sayin'.
Hence the checks and balances.
Today, I'd love to see TSA gropers be gently caressed in prison, all the way up to the head of Homeland Security and TSA.
Yeah. I'll bet Janet "Octopussy" Napolitano would never submit to a pat-down search.
Keep ur powder dry.
Protesting and filing lawsuits sounds good. Electing people who will overturn this shit sounds better.
Also, don't get your knickers in a twist.
Sexual assaults in airports....
Yeah, and don't forget, "Me? I've nothing to hide from the Gubmint."
every time a TSA touches a customer, that is assault. If they touch their private parts, that is sexual assault.
You really should get a clue about what is appropriate and inappropriate. What the TSA does is so clearly criminal it takes a mighty effort of will not to admit it.
But, you've also accepted the president murdering foreign nationals and expropriating a trillion bucks to help his friends out, and then tell us it's for our own good, so a little assault between friends is just foreplay in today's world.
The Americans are frogs in a gradually boiling pot of water, simple as that.
SOME Americans are living in an imaginary 1960's eastern block country.
This is why the "Right to bear arms" is a bad idea in a country with so many idiots.
You were badly tormented in school weren't you.
Ok, so let's play along with the sexual assault accusation, the USA gets some 5 million visitors a month flying in, and how many are complaining sexual assault exactly?
Standing around in the woods where someone will eventually build an airport, who are they going to grope?
The ones who elther have balls to speak up.
Not our fault if they sold their balls long ago for some "see-curity".
No answer then?
Hey thread, you seem to be hurting. Maybe this will help.
Americans are happy with their Daddy Government, even if Daddy is really dear ol' Uncle Tom.
I mean, if they weren't, they'd have overthrown it, just like it says to do in their (now nearly useless) Constitution.
Hey, no big deal... all this document says is, if you're badly-behaved in Daddy's eyes, he can send you to your room. Permanently.
The Constitution tells us to overthrow the government? Are you thinking of the Declaration of Independence?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
2nd Amendment Annotations
Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3
However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.
In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.
The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.
Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes.
In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.
The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty.
You read either of those documents in their entirety, genius?
I read it, too. It doesn't say what some people are claiming. It appears to be a plan for setting up and managing detainee operations alright, but doesn't specify where. Do y'all remember that Obama was going to shut down Gitmo and move the detainees to the U.S.? This would be the plan for current and future detainees.
Also, 40% of the people in the U.S. believe the Earth is only 10,0000 years old. The rest are crazy.
Cuz the party hasn't started yet. But no fear iz here now!
You are an idiot. Simple as that.
So is it time to spam this thread with Ganga style?
Your mear presents has fagged up teh thread but good already, hamhock.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!