Active Users:1110 Time:22/11/2024 09:08:44 PM
I am not trying to pick a fight with you or anyone else. I'm very curious. Sareitha Sedai Send a noteboard - 29/04/2013 02:34:19 PM

View original post
Our Constitution has a basis in the presumption of innocence. Requiring background checks, before utalizing a Right that the Constitution states "shall not be infringed" reverses that presumption.

---
I understand WHY folks might be inclined to favor such a restriction, but it is against the plain language of our Constitution.


(Bolding mine)

The "plain language" of the amendment itself begins with, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state... How do you personally reconcile that bit with the bit you quoted?

If you are from Betelgeuse, please have one of your Earth friends read what I've written before you respond. Or try concentrating harder.

"The trophy problem has become extreme."
Reply to message
Just to be clear... - 20/04/2013 03:32:07 AM 1092 Views
Of course it is - 20/04/2013 04:18:27 AM 519 Views
But, they is us - 23/04/2013 03:13:27 AM 684 Views
First of all, I don't believe that 90% of the population support it - 23/04/2013 04:55:02 AM 721 Views
Just to be clear it is possible to support freedom of the press &support censorship of the internet - 20/04/2013 05:03:26 AM 643 Views
ROFL *NM* - 20/04/2013 05:21:11 AM 275 Views
Bazinga! Well done..... *NM* - 21/04/2013 03:24:34 PM 272 Views
Well played - 23/04/2013 03:20:34 AM 783 Views
No you really can't - 23/04/2013 05:59:04 PM 679 Views
That's the most amusingly incomprehensible attempt at constitutional analysis I've read in a while. *NM* - 26/04/2013 10:47:18 AM 272 Views
How so? It made sense to me - 26/04/2013 03:10:11 PM 523 Views
Presumption of innocence isn't part of the constitution. - 26/04/2013 09:30:17 PM 555 Views
I think that's being a bit pedantic, to be kind - 26/04/2013 11:13:33 PM 767 Views
So is your post. - 28/04/2013 08:41:16 AM 538 Views
I'm not sure how - 28/04/2013 02:46:00 PM 607 Views
I am not trying to pick a fight with you or anyone else. I'm very curious. - 29/04/2013 02:34:19 PM 579 Views
yes *NM* - 20/04/2013 06:26:27 AM 346 Views
Same. Willing to hear counterarguments, though. *NM* - 21/04/2013 02:59:33 PM 330 Views
about 90% of the country agrees with that but still Obama can't close the deal. - 21/04/2013 04:24:15 PM 750 Views
Yep - 23/04/2013 03:47:12 AM 756 Views
90% also believes constanly blaiming others for your own failure is a sign of weakness - 23/04/2013 04:55:53 AM 636 Views
You're smarter than this - 23/04/2013 06:41:09 AM 540 Views
but is wasn't heavily favored it just polls well - 24/04/2013 05:56:41 PM 636 Views
..and that is where the misinformation comes into play - 24/04/2013 07:35:51 PM 591 Views
And that reply makes my point - 26/04/2013 05:49:53 PM 660 Views
And that reply makes my point - 26/04/2013 05:49:53 PM 665 Views
I wonder which other Constitutional rights should require a background check to excercise? *NM* - 22/04/2013 08:56:15 PM 240 Views
How about just the ones that can have potentially lethal consequences for other citizens? - 23/04/2013 03:56:25 AM 653 Views
freedom os speech can be a dangerous thing - 23/04/2013 04:58:02 AM 567 Views
As you know - 28/04/2013 12:11:04 PM 627 Views
Why yes, yes I do... - 23/04/2013 05:43:29 PM 670 Views
I agree - 28/04/2013 12:55:13 PM 741 Views
Re: I agree - 05/05/2013 11:24:37 AM 631 Views
Just to be clear: another hypocrisy of the right wing - 04/05/2013 06:37:31 PM 770 Views
When posting into dead threads it helps to A) Be on topic or B) Make intelligent points - 04/05/2013 08:08:46 PM 4821 Views
That's not true at all. - 05/05/2013 09:45:17 AM 517 Views
*I* have a complex about dead threads? - 05/05/2013 10:36:15 AM 634 Views

Reply to Message