B&H and Adorama Closed!

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by carrigman, Oct 22, 2005.

  1. <GUFFAW!>

    Then show me where the Constituton provides for the federal government to
    prevent property owners from developing their own property, on the grounds
    that doing so might make some "protected species" snail or slug too nervous
    to reproduce. Or to prevent lumbering for similar reasons.

    That nonsense was going on (and steadily increasing) since long before the
    Bush administration. Scores of other examples too, all since long before the
    Bush administration. By and large, the work of leftist-"liberal" loonies,
    the very people who, like you, hate conservatives in general and Bush in
    particular.
     
    Neil Harrington, Nov 1, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Not since the colonies became the United States.

    With or without the Third Amendment. Are you really afraid that if the
    Amendment were repealed today, the Army would start billeting troops in
    private homes tomorrow (or any other time)? It's completely a non-issue.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Nov 1, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Your "liberals" are not liberals in the classical sense of the word. They
    are leftists who have learned they can't, don't dare, identify themselves as
    leftists, since doing so would make them unelectable and powerless. (With
    the singular exception of Bernie Sanders, one-time Socialist mayor of
    Burlington, Vermont and now "independent" congresscritter--who always votes
    with the Democrats, showing that he never really strayed from his socialist
    beliefs. But the little Vermont is an odd place anyway; look, it has given
    us Howard "Screamer" Dean, who now steers the national Democrat ship.)

    No, he says what he means, and this is in fact the chief difference between
    a conservative and a leftist-"liberal."

    You're speaking of judicially-invented "protections," of course, not
    anything actually written in the Constitution.

    So ruling that the Constitution means what it says, no more and no less, is
    being "a rightist activist legislating from the bench" in your view? What a
    topsy-turvy world you leftists live in!

    You want "rights" invented by judges, and never written in law, to carry the
    same weight as those actually written in the Constitution. In other words,
    you believe you have the right to demand leftist activism from the bench.
    And like other leftists you seem to have misinterpreted the Ninth Amendment
    to mean "anything goes." The Ninth Amendment, like the rest of the
    Constitution, means exactly what it says, no more and no less.

    Just did an extensive Googling on this and the "1935 Hitler speech" (which
    has been in fact widely reported) is almost certainly a myth, and even the
    year is wrong. So you appear to be correct here, proving once again that
    even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    That said, the piece you link to, entitled "The Myth of Nazi Gun Control,"
    is devoted mainly to the "myth" that gun control facilitated the Nazis' rise
    to power. This is a non sequitur, or at least I never heard anyone claim
    that it had anything to do with their rise to power, only that Hitler
    promoted gun control in Nazi Germany. The piece itself says: "The 1928 law
    was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being
    the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were
    advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of
    Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law
    was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the
    dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933." Thus even if the supposed 1935
    speech was never made, which seems almost certain, the main thrust of the
    "myth"--that Hitler promoted gun control in Nazi Germany--is obviously true.
    There's no myth there.

    Moreover, there are strong suggestions that our own Gun Control Act of 1968
    was modeled at least in part on the Nazis' Weapons Law of 1938:
    http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm

    I remember reading a lot of stuff about that at the time, but forgot about
    it until it turned up in this Google search.
     
    Neil Harrington, Nov 1, 2005
  4. Only those rights that can be supported by other parts of the
    constitution, such as the right to privacy.[/QUOTE]

    There is no general "right to privacy" anywhere in the Constitution.

    There are no rights "included in the Ninth Amendment."

    The Amendment simply says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
    rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
    people."

    Some framers of the Constitution didn't want a Bill of Rights at all,
    because they were afraid that listing only certain rights might disparage
    others. That was the reason for the Ninth Amendment: to make it clear that
    the rights of the people were not *limited* to only those enumerated.

    The Ninth Amendment can't be used to just make up any "rights" you like, as
    you are trying to do.
     
    Neil Harrington, Nov 1, 2005
  5. Well, since I haven't shown any antipathy towards Christians, I can't
    show where you have shown antipathy towards Jews that I have shown
    towards Christians.

    I can, and have, shown your antipathy towards Jews,[/QUOTE]

    No, you have not. And you cannot, since I have no "antipathy towards Jews"
    per se.

    I haven't asked you to do it "repeatedly." Just once would be sufficient.
    You cannot do so at all in a way that any reasonable person could make sense
    out of. The only question is whether you are deliberately lying, or honestly
    as foolish as your remarks make you out to be.

    What other "being bombarded with religious propaganda" besides Christian
    have you objected to, for example?

    Perhaps you live in some other country. I live in the U.S., I am completely
    non-religious (which includes being non-Christian), and I am not "bombarded
    with religious propaganda" at all. If you live in this country too and feel
    yourself to be so "bombarded," you must be reacting with great hostility to
    something that I haven't noticed and/or hasn't bothered me at all, and that
    something for you is Christian, is it not? If that doesn't show "antipathy
    towards Christians" you must have some impossible benchmark for antipathy.
     
    Neil Harrington, Nov 1, 2005
  6. carrigman

    kashe Guest

    It remains a demonstration. Plenty of laws are on the books
    which haven't been enforced in years. The last time the "fighting
    words" defense prevailed in court was in 1949.

    So you can't ignore me after all. Figures -- you're just
    another jerk who plonks, but not really. I demand that you re-plonk
    me, including echoes of what I say that show up in others' postings.
    Or just admit publicly that you can't resist reading what I post.
     
    kashe, Nov 1, 2005
  7. carrigman

    kashe Guest

    Which you hereby admit was just another of your bullshit
    arguments.
     
    kashe, Nov 1, 2005
  8. carrigman

    kashe Guest

    You fucking moron -- why do you have to descend to the "hate"
    stuff every timne you get your ass whipped?

    Apparently you "hate" losing the argument.
     
    kashe, Nov 1, 2005
  9. carrigman

    ASAAR Guest

    Do you know what the situation is in Iraq? I believe I heard in
    part of a radio report more than a week ago that the way their
    Constitution (unless I'm confusing it with something else) does
    allow troops to occupy private homes.
     
    ASAAR, Nov 1, 2005
  10. carrigman

    kashe Guest

    Exctkly what it says -- just because a right is not enumerated
    here, it does not argue that the ruight does not exist. It sets a
    floor on rights, not a ceiling.

    Please take a reading comprehension class and try to get a
    passing grade.

    Rightist fascists love to attribute "hate" to anyone holding a
    diffrent opinion.
    But you'll never see this unless your magic plonker fails.
    Again.
     
    kashe, Nov 2, 2005
  11. carrigman

    kashe Guest

    A moment of exuberation, in contrast to the tight-assed
    conservatives is enough for the fascist right to stop listening to the
    message. It's far easier to blow off the nessenger.
    More of Neil's non-responsive bullshit.
    ... which says that enumeration in the Constitution is not a
    limit to rights retained by the people. Oh, how the fascists would
    love you to forget that little bit, which allows for the evolution of
    human thought and compassion.

    "Compassionate conservative" -- what shit.
     
    kashe, Nov 2, 2005
  12. carrigman

    kashe Guest

    The onstitution allows for progress in human consciousness.>
    And you would have the Supreme Court turn over private
    property to private enterprise, as they recently did. How's that fro
    judicial activism. They've essentially said that depriving private
    citizens of their property so that private corporate enterprizes is
    "for the public good, so long as a city collects more in taxes from
    the corporate marauder.

    What a cynical prostitution of the concept of private
    property.

    And the fascist conservatives are delighted.
    And you prove once again that you're shallow enough to take a
    meaningless statement as deep wisdom. What an intellectual dick.
     
    kashe, Nov 2, 2005
  13. carrigman

    kashe Guest

    He didn't need anyone other than the other seven
    constitutional scholars on his bench explained to him.

    As for enforcement, there is also the corollary that if it's
    illegal to use, then its use can be prevented by criminalizing the
    transportation, sale or possession of the devices necessary to its
    use. Think pot laws. OK, have someone with a brain think pot laws for
    you.
    Of course not, you shallow dipshit -- it means _what it says_
    -- that the enumeration is not a limit in what may be taken as a
    right.
     
    kashe, Nov 2, 2005
  14. carrigman

    kashe Guest

    But you agree below that it's not necessary to qppear there to
    be a real right. So do us all a favor and shut up about non-inclusion
    having anything to do with whether a right can exist.
    Nice going, idiot. For all your ranting about rights not
    explicitly found in the Constitution, you've finally come across to
    the correct interpretation that a right doesn't have to be explicitly
    enumerated. I'll bet you didn't even notice you'd switched sides.
    That's what happens when you try to drool out of both sides of your
    mouth.
     
    kashe, Nov 2, 2005
  15. carrigman

    kashe Guest

    You've disparaged the story of Moses, a central belief of
    three of the great religions of the world.
    And he's supposed to choose among options supplied by an
    intellectual flyweight like you?
     
    kashe, Nov 2, 2005
  16. carrigman

    kashe Guest

    When in doubt, insert a phrase like "per se" to further cloud
    the issue.
    Disingenuous jerk. Twist the word to suit the context you
    like.
     
    kashe, Nov 2, 2005
  17. carrigman

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Yes it does.
    "right to marital privacy."
    Fascists hate liberalism.
    Let's look up a definition of "fascism". The source is the
    Encyclopedia Brittanica.

    Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from
    each other, they had many characteristics in common, including
    extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy
    and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social
    hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a
    Volksgemeinschaft (German: "people's community"), in which
    individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the
    nation.

    "militaristic nationalism"
    "contempt for electoral democracy"
    "contempt for ... liberalism"
    "natural social hierarchy"
    "rule of elites"
    "individual interests would be subordinated"

    Sounds just like Republican conservatives.
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 3, 2005
  18. So the property owner who wants to develop his property, and believes he has
    more right to do so than some gaggle of self-important bureaucrats do to
    prevent him, is demonstrating a "King in his castle" concept?! Astonishing.

    In many and probably most cases the owner bought the property expressly for
    that purpose, not to keep the land a safe amd secure haven for any of the
    thousands of species of snails, slugs, bugs, rats, etc. that the bloated
    corps of bureaucrats decide are "endangered species." No one really cares
    about them anyway, except that selfsame lot of bureaucrats whose continued
    (and increasing) feeding at the public trough requires such devotion.
    And you actually *believe* all that utter nonsense?

    You are talking about primitive and savage people who never got out of the
    Stone Age before Europeans came here (and who were glad enough to seize the
    better technology that Europeans brought). You are talking about people who
    never discovered the wheel, though they had needed it for thousands of years
    (instead, they dragged their goods over the ground). You are talking about
    people who regularly practiced slavery, rape, torture and mutilation of
    captives, and evidently had done so for centuries if not millennia. And you
    seriously believe that those aborigines "had existing sophisticated systems
    of Property Law based on what we are now calling Environmental Law"?!

    I suppose you think they had the bureaucracy to go with it too? (Heh. If
    they had, they wouldn't have lasted even into the 19th century.)

    <GUFFAW!> If the leftist-"liberals" have their way they might very well put
    us back that far, at that.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Nov 3, 2005
  19. Actually, it "just happens to be" when we stopped being British subjects.
    Ergo, no more British soldiers quartered in private homes without the
    consent of the owners.(Duh.)

    You must be smoking some really strange stuff up there, Floyd. You need to
    get back in touch with civilization and what's actually been going on in the
    world, get rid of those paranoid fantasies.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Nov 3, 2005
  20. It does not. Read it from beginning to end and you will find no such thing
    as a "right to marital privacy."

    You've been hornswoggled. Keep listening to "liberal" Democrats and you'll
    never get anything right.

    Sure, but no more than leftist-"liberals" do, if you take liberalism in its
    classical sense. Anyone who wants to deprive people of their constitutional
    ( = what it actually says in the Constitution, such as the right to keep and
    bear arms) rights is no real liberal. Did you really think liberalism is
    about *depriving* people of their rights?

    You've been bamboozled. You should be pissed at the people who've deceived
    you, not the other side.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Nov 3, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.