U.S.is exporting crime and terror to Canada

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

i take it you've never heard of a "tack driver"

Seems like a waste of ammo, the butt of the M-16 is frequently used for dental surgery.

[Zero Sum 305]

Or the fact that you stick to the tollway and keep your windows up and doors locked while avoiding direct eye contact.

No tollways through Englewood, and when driving, its safer to keep your eyes on the road.

But I am not surprised how you would derive certain things as 'fact.'

Provide for the common defence doesn't mean the federal government should be policing your neighborhood. Sorry you interpret it that way.

I don't think he interprets it that way.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Zero Sum

[slim 1,533]

Seems like a waste of ammo, the butt of the M-16 is frequently used for dental surgery.

I bloodied a nose with one.

No tollways through Englewood, and when driving, its safer to keep your eyes on the road.

There are plenty through Gary.

But I am not surprised how you would derive certain things as 'fact.'

Hard not to when you're "street cred" comes out.

I don't think he interprets it that way.

It doesn't matter if you think that. Your perception of someone else's opinion has little bearing on the conversation.

[Zero Sum 305]

There are plenty through Gary.

There might. None of which I use when on my way to the Dunes. As I said before, I drive through the city. That means taking US-41.

Hard not to when you're "street cred" comes out.

I don't claim any, actually. You might be reading too much, looking for an argument that isn't there, perhaps.

It doesn't matter if you think that. Your perception of someone else's opinion has little bearing on the conversation.

It has more to do with reading. Your statement taken literally (as you apparently do with the Constitution) means that he would have claimed that he wants to see Federal officers patrolling and policing US streets. He does not make this claim.

[slim 1,533]

There might. None of which I use when on my way to the Dunes. As I said before, I drive through the city. That means taking US-41.

Like the proximity argument in the other thread, driving through sometimes doesn't make you any more knowledgeable than someone who's just punched it in to google.

I don't claim any, actually. You might be reading too much, looking for an argument that isn't there, perhaps.

I don't have to read into it for a good argument!

It has more to do with reading. Your statement taken literally (as you apparently do with the Constitution) means that he would have claimed that he wants to see Federal officers patrolling and policing US streets. He does not make this claim.

He can imply that even without officers patrolling the streets since the federal government's reach goes further than law enforcement.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Shoot the criminals dead and enforce the law on the others. Works pretty well in every other part of the country.

Provide for the common defence doesn't mean the federal government should be policing your neighborhood. Sorry you interpret it that way.

Promote the general welfare does not mean pay people to watch cable and reproduce. Sorry you interpret it that way.

Where does it say life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the preamble? Constitution?

The purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile. (And yes, I can hammer nails with my guns.)

If you want to get a little deeper as to why we have guns our right to own them is protected for the purpose of a deterrent against tyrannical government. It's not just about duck hunting. Although, our founders were "sportsmen" with their shooting irons perhaps more than any other sporting items.

If someone is a criminal, then they presumably have been tried and convicted in a court of law, how did they escape incarceration? If the law is enforced on people who aren't criminals does that mean that innocent people will now be arrested since they haven't yet been convicted so that they may enter the general populace so they may be shot dead? If we don't provide for the common defence should the government through its agents abrogate its duty to defend The Constitution and the laws of The United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic? If someone or something kills people, isn't the government obligated to defend the citizenry from it? If I ride on the L and my fellow passengers and I wish to arive at our respective destinations without being harmed or at least being able to maintain a modicum of wellness, is it too much to ask that we not pass through the E.R. first? Is promoting the general welfare predicated on viewing of television and the fathering of illegitimate children or does security of person not qualify as such? Does the Declaration of Independence have no gravitas whatsoever? Do the sentiments and ideals espoused therein lack even value as parole evidence? If the Declaration of Independence is to be dismissed, does that mean that forming a more perfect union has no meaning? Does domestic tranquility have no legal basis? Does the fact that the hammer was invented and utilized long before the advent of firearms alter your technique for hanging picture frames? Is a pink handled firearm needed to hang drapes in a Ladies boudoir? Is the government of the United States a tyranny? Are street shootings in response to the actions of the government? Have the laws of The United States of America been suspended via martial law?

I bloodied a nose with one.

Slim, you gotta be more careful. For Heaven's sake, next time just go to the dentist.

[Zero Sum 305]

Like the proximity argument in the other thread, driving through sometimes doesn't make you any more knowledgeable than someone who's just punched it in to google.

I don't have to read into it for a good argument!

He can imply that even without officers patrolling the streets since the federal government's reach goes further than law enforcement.

I live in the city of Chicago, driving through these areas on a weekly basis, sometimes more. I claim no knowledge, I only make a statement of observation.

You are only looking for an argument for whatever reason you have, as I wrote- perhaps. Missed it?

But please do enlighten us on how the Federal reach goes further than law enforcement- if the Constitutional context that establishes a government and legislature that itself establishes a structure of law enforcement (technically, the Executive), is itself Constitutionally established. Law? Like its been explained to you before- law is legislated by the structure established in the Constitution. It is also examined periodically by the Constitutional Court (The US Supreme Court), in case citizens have issues with the legislative process. If you have a problem with law, use the proper venues to challenge their constitutionality.

[slim 1,533]

If someone is a criminal, then they presumably have been tried and convicted in a court of law, how did they escape incarceration? If the law is enforced on people who aren't criminals does that mean that innocent people will now be arrested since they haven't yet been convicted so that they may enter the general populace so they may be shot dead?

You'll have to ask an expert like Rob about this, but it's common knowledge that the legal system and laws already on the books do not deter folks from shooting (or any other way) killing each other. We can't make it any more illegal.

What we can do is shoot criminals dead. We currently don't do that since most of our population is unarmed. If that changed, you'd see less crime!

If we don't provide for the common defence should the government through its agents abrogate its duty to defend The Constitution and the laws of The United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic? If someone or something kills people, isn't the government obligated to defend the citizenry from it?

If that something is other citizens... is it the government's job to intervene?

If I ride on the L and my fellow passengers and I wish to arive at our respective destinations without being harmed or at least being able to maintain a modicum of wellness, is it too much to ask that we not pass through the E.R. first?

Nope. But, you shouldn't ask the federal government to do that, you should first ask your fellow citizens.

Is promoting the general welfare predicated on viewing of television and the fathering of illegitimate children or does security of person not qualify as such? Does the Declaration of Independence have no gravitas whatsoever? Do the sentiments and ideals espoused therein lack even value as parole evidence?

After about 1933, yep. Even moreso in the late '60s.

If the Declaration of Independence is to be dismissed, does that mean that forming a more perfect union has no meaning? Does domestic tranquility have no legal basis? Does the fact that the hammer was invented and utilized long before the advent of firearms alter your technique for hanging picture frames? Is a pink handled firearm needed to hang drapes in a Ladies boudoir? Is the government of the United States a tyranny? Are street shootings in response to the actions of the government? Have the laws of The United States of America been suspended via martial law?

Think of it this way - The government is set up to create an environment to pursue happiness. Not give you happiness, not provide you with happiness, but for you to pursue happiness.

Slim, you gotta be more careful. For Heaven's sake, next time just go to the dentist.

It wasn't my nose!

If you have a problem with law, use the proper venues to challenge their constitutionality.

If I had the resources I would!

I'm doing what I can with what I've got.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

I live in the city of Chicago, driving through these areas on a weekly basis, sometimes more. I claim no knowledge, I only make a statement of observation.

You are only looking for an argument for whatever reason you have, as I wrote- perhaps. Missed it?

But please do enlighten us on how the Federal reach goes further than law enforcement- if the Constitutional context that establishes a government and legislature that itself establishes a structure of law enforcement (technically, the Executive), is itself Constitutionally established. Law? Like its been explained to you before- law is legislated by the structure established in the Constitution. It is also examined periodically by the Constitutional Court (The US Supreme Court), in case citizens have issues with the legislative process. If you have a problem with law, use the proper venues to challenge their constitutionality.

Empirical evidence is still the best evidence...next to fabricated evidence. I hope that you weren't suggesting that Slim tie a message to a brick and throw it through Justice Roberts front window?

[Zero Sum 305]

If I had the resources I would!

I'm doing what I can with what I've got.

As is your right. It sucks that money is what matters in these cases lots of times. Don't feel angry though when you get laughed out of court by people much more qualified than you to interpret the Constitution with actual understanding of what the words in it actually say.

[slim 1,533]

As is your right. It sucks that money is what matters in these cases lots of times. Don't feel angry though when you get laughed out of court by people much more qualified than you to interpret the Constitution with actual understanding of what the words in it actually say.

How can I get laughed out of court when the constitution is the evidence?

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

You'll have to ask an expert like Rob about this, but it's common knowledge that the legal system and laws already on the books do not deter folks from shooting (or any other way) killing each other. We can't make it any more illegal.

So you're advocating extrajudicial measures?

What we can do is shoot criminals dead. We currently don't do that since most of our population is unarmed. If that changed, you'd see less crime!

We'd also see less innocent bystanders, less people in general.

If that something is other citizens... is it the government's job to intervene?

So we should disband the armed forces? Why even bother to have Public Health? WE are the government, believe it or not!

Nope. But, you shouldn't ask the federal government to do that, you should first ask your fellow citizens.

Excuse me, Mr. Mad Dog killer type, before you pop a cap in your colleague's azz, could you kindly avoid hitting me. I have to meet a friend at Marina City and she wouldn't appreciate it if I bled all over her Persian rug. I knew that you'd understand.

After about 1933, yep. Even moreso in the late '60s.

There was cable television in 1933? Did AMC show old Edison Kinetoscopes?

Think of it this way - The government is set up to create an environment to pursue happiness. Not give you happiness, not provide you with happiness, but for you to pursue happiness.

Is the government now going to start issuing body armour? Can I pursue happiness if I'm dodging bullets or exsanguinating? What if it's so dangerous outside that I fear for my life?

It wasn't my nose!

Has the dentist forgiven you?

If I had the resources I would!

I'll see if I can find Chief Justice Roberts home address.

I'm doing what I can with what I've got.

We appreciate that, Slim, honestly we do.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

As is your right. It sucks that money is what matters in these cases lots of times. Don't feel angry though when you get laughed out of court by people much more qualified than you to interpret the Constitution with actual understanding of what the words in it actually say.

He keeps trying to push the strict constructionalist agenda, while arrogation of power is not a good thing, sometimes things just need to get done. He keeps tilting at windmills and that's all we can ask.

How can I get laughed out of court when the constitution is the evidence?

:whistle:

[Zero Sum 305]

How can I get laughed out of court when the constitution is the evidence?

I wrote something there about those judges being much more qualified to read and interpret that same Constitution than you.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

I wrote something there about those judges being much more qualified to read and interpret that same Constitution than you.

Slim vs. Scalia, can you imagine?