Re: Facts that piss off trolls
- From: Steve Carroll <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:42:20 -0600
In article <C11C5BC4.5DDDD%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-E7A434.08353031082006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 8/31/06 7:35 AM:
In article <C11BB27D.5DC43%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
noone-453F77.18163930082006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 8/30/06 5:16 PM:
In article <C11B70EE.5DBA0%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I do not believe people should have the right to own a nuke, even though
the
Constitution grants them that "right".
LOL! Geezus!!! It's absolutely amazing how little you know about this
topic!
Fact: The Constitution doesn't "grant" any rights.
Fact: The first draft didn't even contain a Bill of Rights because the
founders deemed it unnecessary as the rights were "inalienable" to them.
It's unfortunate that all it takes is a few generations of idiots like
you to arrive at the point were things change beyond all recognition.
Ah, so the Second Amendment... a part of the Bill of Rights, in your world
does not grant any rights.
Only in your world does the Constitution "grant" "rights" to anyone. The
rest of us understand the concept of "inalienable" rights. Congress is
"granted" "powers" (powers are not rights) via the Constitution...
perhaps that is where you confused yourself;)
Um, Steve, your semantic games are pathetic.
LOL! OK, Mr. 'teacher';)
Ah, yes, Steve does wish to play semantic games. Without the Bill of
Rights, Steve, the US might not even be granting you the right to spew your
asinine semantic games and lies in a public forum.
You should be thankful of the rights the US Government grants you - not all
people in the world have those rights.
The words of a law worshipper don't much interest me. The following
should interest you...
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Notice the word "enumeration" and the mention of "certain" rights...
this, as opposed to a "grant" of rights. If we are merely 'granted'
rights by the Constitution, as you have claimed here, why is this
amendment referring to the fact that, just because "certain" rights are
enumerated in the Constitution it doesn't mean "others" will be denied
us? If rights are merely granted to us by the Constitution, are we,
then, not denied that which is not granted by the Constitution? See the
phrase "retained by the people"? How can "the people" 'retain' rights
that are not granted to them by the Constitution? Ooops!!! :)
Ever read the Declaration of Independence? Were you able to understand
what you read? In the U.S., gov'ts exist to "secure" rights (as opposed
to 'granting' them) they have power (as opposed to rights - the U.S.
State and Federal gov'ts do not have *any* "rights") 'granted' to them
by "the people"; their powers are limited to what is stated in the
Constitution, as such, they have no power to "grant" rights to "the
people".
You failed high school civics, didn't you? Or did you ever take it? Are
you an American citizen?
--
Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD - Snit
Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls
like myself - Snit
I am a bigger liar than Steve - Snit
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Is it possible?
- Next by Date: Re: NeoOffice Aqua feature rich and good enough to bid MS Office adieu
- Previous by thread: Re: Facts that piss off trolls
- Next by thread: Re: Facts that piss off trolls
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
