• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1119 Awesome

About TN05

  • Rank
  • Birthday 11/29/1994

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Conover, North Carolina

Recent Profile Visitors

3,554 profile views

TN05's Activity

  1. TN05 added a post in a topic Ginsburg on the court decisions this year   

    Nah, considering I disagree with him on literally everything else. Just figured since this seems to be such a big deal for you, might be a deal breaker.
    And if that's what you are interested in, I still highly recommend Amar. I don't agree with him on the entirety (he upholds a right to own a hangun in your house, but not much else), but I think he presents a much more reasonable liberal view of it.
    • 0
  2. TN05 added a topic in The Tinderbox   

    Garland terrorist bought gun through F&F
    The Chicago Tribune is reporting that the gun the failed Garland shooter (the guy who tried to shoot up the Muhammad drawing contest) was bought in 2010 under the Obama administration's Fast and Furious program. Maybe the GOP wasn't so stupid for looking into this thing?
    • 3 replies
  3. TN05 added a post in a topic Ginsburg on the court decisions this year   

    Putting aside your dubious "people means militia, not people" claim, why did Chief Justice Blaney, in the Dred Scott decision in 1857 note that, if Scott's right to citizenship and freedom was upheld, it would give black people the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"?
    And it wouldn't have been, if the amendment, like it was initially supposed to be, focused on military actives. It doesn't.
    I would argue it is an incredibly crazy notion to say that interpreting "the people" as "the people" is the same as saying "the right to keep and bear arms" means "bear arms". 
    I'm not trying to solve problems. I'm just saying if this argument isn't going to be reasonable, we should stop.
    Bernie opposes most gun control. :)
    • 0
  4. TN05 added a post in a topic PP facing real problems now   

    How isn't it so, then? You said:

    "Ignore those who irrationally believe their every move is being monitored by an invisible being and you're left with virtually no opposition to Planned Parenthood."

    So, as you said - only religious people can think it's wrong to chop up babies and sell their organs. But maybe I'm just not 'enlightened' enough to understand why that's OK.
    Yep. He provided a method for forgiveness of sins, and those that reject that method have to face judgement of their sins. Fairly simple, really.
    If you don't know the answer to the question, you aren't versed enough in what Christians believe to actually answer it.
    And the alternative is send everyone to heaven. Which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
    You seem to be confusing 'natural death' with 'God killing someone'... you aren't actually confused. Like most atheists I've seen online, you ask a stupid question and then act like you've actually achieved something. You know the answer to your question.
    • 1
  5. TN05 added a post in a topic The Hero   

    For many places, doubling the minimum wage is doubling how much salary they give out. You don't see how that could cause problems?
    • 0
  6. TN05 added a post in a topic Ginsburg on the court decisions this year   

    The unorganized 'militia' is the whole of the people, yes. "The people" are not the same as organized militias that you speak of.
    Hold it. This directly contradicts your claim that early versions were designed to protect objectors from military service. If the only purpose of the amendment is military, why would such a crucial and agreeable passage be removed? Perhaps the fact it allows the people to decide whether or not to arm themselves.
    Not the whole "right of the people to keep and bear arms thing". But of course I'm speaking to someone who thinks interpreting "the people" as meaning "the people" is the exact same thing as interpreting "the right to keep and bear arms" to mean "bear arms". 
    That argument is not going to sway any gun owner or second amendment supporter. It's simply not. If you are actually interested in a reasoned debate on this, rather than just a back and forth on whether "the people" means "the militia", I would suggest you read liberal scholars like Akhil Amar. This article would be a good place to start. Unlike most liberal judges, Amar actually considers himself an originalist and attempts to argue from the text and intent of the founders. 

    That being said, I don't see any reason to continue this discussion if nothing is going to be accomplished.
    • 0
  7. TN05 added a post in a topic PP facing real problems now   

    Not 3%. A fifth of their revenue comes from it.
    So only religious people can think it's wrong to chop up babies and sell their organs? Because if so, that speaks terribly of atheists like yourself. :)
    • 0
  8. TN05 added a post in a topic PP facing real problems now   

    If you take government funding into account (which this group did), yes. That would be the case. But I noted it doesn't include government funding. As they note:
    "All of this totals 1,100.8 million or just over 1 billion dollars. Of the 404.9 million that is “Health Center Revenue” about 38% of that is from the approximately 155 million that comes in from abortion. This leaves 250 million that Planned Parenthood collects from patients for non-abortion services. This means that approximately 23% (250 million divided into 1,100.8 million) of Planned Parenthood’s revenue comes from the paying, non-abortion patients at their centers."

    In essence: if you only count health clinic revenue (404.9 million) and divide it by abortion revenue (155 million), you get 38%. 155 million is actually low - I've seen estimates more around 300 million (by taking the average cost of abortion and the number of abortions performed).

    Your point? They still rely on abortion revenue for nearly 40% of their health center revenue. That's a lot.
    • 0
  9. TN05 added a post in a topic Ginsburg on the court decisions this year   

    It led to the part saying the necessity of the militia, yes. The right of the people to keep and bear arms thus includes the right to operate militias, but it does not rely on it exclusively. That's why the right ultimately lies with the people.
    And the second amendment notes the necessity of militias (limiting the government in that regard), while also noting the right of the people to keep and bear arms (limiting the government in another regard). 

    • 0
  10. TN05 added a post in a topic PP facing real problems now   

    I bet you still think Michael Brown died with his hands up saying "don't shoot".
    • 0
  11. TN05 added a post in a topic PP facing real problems now   

    That's all they have. When confronted with facts, attack the messenger.
    • 0
  12. TN05 added a post in a topic PP facing real problems now   

    1/3rd of their non-governmental funding comes from abortions. But it's just such a minor thing, right?
    • 0
  13. TN05 added a post in a topic Ginsburg on the court decisions this year   

    Nope. What it means is if I say "the church can do x" and "the school can do y", I can't reasonably say that means "the church can do x". Why? Because those are two different words being used in two different contexts to mean two different things. Now, if you I can provide some evidence that "people" means "militia" - or anything other than "people" - go ahead. But you can't.
    Excellent, you're providing arguments! You are kind of correct, in that originally the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government - that is why state constitutions have bills of rights as well. In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the court unanimously ruled that the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government. However, since the ratification of the 14th Amendment, its due process clause altered this, requiring the states to abide by the Bill of Rights as well.

    However, you are arguing "people" and "states" mean the same thing. That's not the case. Patrick Henry was irate that the Constitution used "we the people" instead of "we the states", because the wording "we the people" leads to a vastly different founding ideal. Moreover, in the tenth amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"), the states and people are clearly differentiated. The founders did not conflate the two because the two are vastly different.
    No, it doesn't. Military service and private ownership of firearms are two very different things. The 2nd amendment initially offered the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as well as the right of the people not to bear arms and not to be conscripted into military service. Eventually they removed most of the parts relating to militia ownership.
    It's not that you have a right not to have a right. You have a right to keep and bear arms, and you have the right not to keep and bear arms. Early amendments specifically stated the latter, plus the right not to be conscripted. What that means in the initial draft is that while you have the right to keep and bear arms, you are not obligated to keep arms, nor to be conscripted into the military.
    And you ignore the "right of the people to keep and bear arms".
    So now you are interpreting 'free state' to mean state governments? Never heard that interpretation before.
    Nope. It's actually very well-written and clear English; you just can't seem to grasp it. Instead you reach for an absurd definition where "people" doesn't mean "people"; it means "militia", even though the word "militia" is clearly used earlier. If they wanted to apply the right to militias, they would have used the word militia both times. 

    The only logical reading is that "militia" means "militia" and "the people" means "the people". 
    • 1
  14. TN05 added a post in a topic Ginsburg on the court decisions this year   

    "Professor Bogus"? That's probably the worst name for a professor I've ever heard, lol.
    • 3
  15. TN05 added a post in a topic Ginsburg on the court decisions this year   

    Bullsh*t. You are the one making the claim that "the people" means "the militia", even though those are two completely different things. All I'm asking is you provide some evidence that the founding fathers were too stupid to say 'militia' when they meant 'militia' and 'people' when they met 'people'. You can't provide that evidence, because there is no evidence to back up such a moronic argument.
     Do you believe that copyrights can only be awarded to works that promote science or the useful arts?

    The reason a preamble there is to provide a reason why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Your argument is "the preamble nullifies the rest of the amendment and the founding fathers were too stupid to use the word 'militia' when they meant 'militia' and 'people' when they meant 'people'". Which one requires you to jump through more hurdles?
    Once again, you ignore my argument because it's inconvenient. You don't seem to comprehend amendments can refer to more than one thing, and also don't seem to comprehend that the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is in literally every draft - including the first one, where there is no preamble. So by your logic (preambles nullify the rest of the amendment and earlier drafts nullify later ones), gun rights still win.
    Because the amendment was referring to different things - militias and people. I know, it's shocking that different words mean different things! If we refer to the first draft:

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

    You can see three distinct meanings.
    1) The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    2) An effective militia is the best way to secure a free country
    3) No person shall be obligated to either personally bear arms or serve in a militia.
    • 0