W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Apr 23, 2013 4:45pm
Like I said, the only think I can make an assumption on is your postings here.gut;1432232 wrote:Because the arguments interest me? I never said I opposed gun ownership, I said the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee that right. You equated that with being against guns. You made a bad assumption.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Apr 23, 2013 6:09pm
I didn't say it was a stupid assumption, just that it was wrong.WebFire;1432234 wrote:Like I said, the only think I can make an assumption on is your postings here.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Apr 23, 2013 9:05pm
LOLgut;1432259 wrote:I didn't say it was a stupid assumption, just that it was wrong.
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Apr 23, 2013 11:17pm
So the motives had to do with us invading Iraq, starting a war, killing hundreds of thousands of their people and the 12 year occupation of Afghanistan. Gee...what a fucking shocking revelation.WebFire;1432058 wrote:How about Iraq and Afghanistan?
Boston.com News ‏@BostonDotCom16m
Report: Bombing suspects motivated by US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan http://www.boston.com/news/source/2013/04/report_bombing.html … via @BostonDotCom
Slate ‏@Slate24m
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev reportedly cited the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as motivations for the #Boston bombing: http://slate.me/15Et6cM
Will McAvoy ‏@WillMcAvoyACN30m
Washington Post reporting the suspect in the Boston Bombing is claiming the Iraq/Afghanistan wars were motivation.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Apr 24, 2013 10:03am
George Washington disagrees with you, FWIW.gut;1432129 wrote:There is a clear and unambiguous factual reading of the 2nd amendment...and then there is your opinion, your inference, - based on no historical context - that the 2nd amendment gives non-militia the right to bear arms.
My opinion is that your opinion the 2nd amendment gives everyone the right to bear arms is baseless.
FatHobbit
Posts: 8,651
Apr 24, 2013 10:06am
Gut has history on his side. But as is frequently the case, if we imagine something long enough it becomes a fact.WebFire;1432583 wrote:George Washington disagrees with you, FWIW.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Apr 24, 2013 10:17am
A supreme court ruling that it is so is enough historical context for me. In fact it is the ONLY historical context that really matters.gut;1432129 wrote:and then there is your opinion, your inference, - based on no historical context - that the 2nd amendment gives non-militia the right to bear arms.
With all of the subjects open to debate, I'm confused as to why people choose to debate one where a winner has been declared.
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Apr 24, 2013 3:28pm
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 24, 2013 4:58pm
Your point?QuakerOats;1432785 wrote:TAXPAYER-FUNDED TERROR?
BOSTON BOMBERS ON WELFARE...
Headed to NYC to 'party'...
believer
Posts: 8,153
Apr 24, 2013 6:03pm
seems obvious enoughptown_trojans_1;1432884 wrote:Your point?
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 24, 2013 6:21pm
Dudes were on welfare.believer;1432923 wrote:seems obvious enough
Yet, hated America.
Typical terrorist double speak.
Seems like a footnote though more than a story.
Honestly don't care. I am more interested in their motive, and the story about the CIA/ and the watch-list...
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Apr 24, 2013 6:52pm
Really a different thread. The story is why do we give welfare to illegals, and why do we give citizenship to people that are going to be burden on the system? We have enough poor people of our own now, we maybe shouldn't continue taking everyone else's poor people.ptown_trojans_1;1432930 wrote: Seems like a footnote though more than a story.
BGFalcons82
Posts: 2,173
Apr 24, 2013 7:04pm
Good luck with that interest. Maggot #2 has lawyered-up thanks to Barry, Holder, and Big Sis' refusal to treat him as a treasonous American. Surely politics trumps national defense in Obamaland.ptown_trojans_1;1432930 wrote:Seems like a footnote though more than a story.
Honestly don't care. I am more interested in their motive, and the story about the CIA/ and the watch-list...
Cleveland Buck
Posts: 5,126
Apr 24, 2013 7:43pm
The Constitution applies to all citizens. It even specifies that traitors get a trial.BGFalcons82;1432956 wrote:Good luck with that interest. Maggot #2 has lawyered-up thanks to Barry, Holder, and Big Sis' refusal to treat him as a treasonous American. Surely politics trumps national defense in Obamaland.
BGFalcons82
Posts: 2,173
Apr 24, 2013 7:53pm
The Constitution is also crystal clear in regards to treason. The penalty is death and the sooner Maggot #2 is swinging from the gallows the better.Cleveland Buck;1433002 wrote:The Constitution applies to all citizens. It even specifies that traitors get a trial.
Cleveland Buck
Posts: 5,126
Apr 24, 2013 8:11pm
I don't disagree, but let him have his trial first. The Constitution is there to protect us, not people like him.BGFalcons82;1433014 wrote:The Constitution is also crystal clear in regards to treason. The penalty is death and the sooner Maggot #2 is swinging from the gallows the better.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Apr 24, 2013 8:23pm
I don't know if the analyst I heard is right, but they said citizenship can be revoked if you lied on your application. And he lied when he promised not to do harm to the US to get his citizenship 6 months ago.Cleveland Buck;1433002 wrote:The Constitution applies to all citizens. It even specifies that traitors get a trial.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 24, 2013 8:40pm
That is the story of American.gut;1432942 wrote:Really a different thread. The story is why do we give welfare to illegals, and why do we give citizenship to people that are going to be burden on the system? We have enough poor people of our own now, we maybe shouldn't continue taking everyone else's poor people.
He is an American, and thus us entitled to the same rights as you and me. It is the way the framers intended.BGFalcons82;1432956 wrote:Good luck with that interest. Maggot #2 has lawyered-up thanks to Barry, Holder, and Big Sis' refusal to treat him as a treasonous American. Surely politics trumps national defense in Obamaland.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Apr 24, 2013 10:46pm
I doubt the framers intended on granting citizenship to terrorists.ptown_trojans_1;1433054 wrote: He is an American, and thus us entitled to the same rights as you and me. It is the way the framers intended.
believer
Posts: 8,153
Apr 25, 2013 4:30am
Heretic
Posts: 18,820
Apr 25, 2013 12:14pm
Heh, considering that it'd be pretty tricky to tell if someone has terroristic plans when they're going for their citizenship (I mean, I'm just guessing that they're not holding a lit bomb while screaming "DEATH TO AMERICA!!!!", while signing paperwork), I'd say that would be a tricky comment to bring into play in this situation.gut;1433191 wrote:I doubt the framers intended on granting citizenship to terrorists.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Apr 25, 2013 3:57pm
They lied on the application. Do they still deserve citizenship and its protections when they obtained it fraudulently?Heretic;1433477 wrote:Heh, considering that it'd be pretty tricky to tell if someone has terroristic plans when they're going for their citizenship (I mean, I'm just guessing that they're not holding a lit bomb while screaming "DEATH TO AMERICA!!!!", while signing paperwork), I'd say that would be a tricky comment to bring into play in this situation.
ptown_trojans_1
Posts: 7,632
Apr 25, 2013 4:18pm
So, then what?gut;1433624 wrote:They lied on the application. Do they still deserve citizenship and its protections when they obtained it fraudulently?
No trial? Military trial? Gee, how those working out in GITMO, shoddy history so far.
I'd rather go with the proven system of civilian trials and legal system we have used for crimes like this since our foundation.
It has proven sufficient in the McVey case, the blind sheik, the Unabomber, and all the back to anarchists and traitors back in the 19th century.
Plus, a civilian trial will be over quicker.
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Apr 25, 2013 4:25pm
He can still be tried, just not as a citizen. It's not like foreigners that commit crimes in the US are simply deported or put thru military courts.ptown_trojans_1;1433628 wrote:So, then what?
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Apr 25, 2013 4:26pm
^This. You would have to have a trial just to remove his citizenship. I imagine they could've found some federal charge but prior to 9/11 I think there is a good chance this is just a state-law murder case, etc.ptown_trojans_1;1433628 wrote:So, then what?
No trial? Military trial? Gee, how those working out in GITMO, shoddy history so far.
I'd rather go with the proven system of civilian trials and legal system we have used for crimes like this since our foundation.
It has proven sufficient in the McVey case, the blind sheik, the Unabomber, and all the back to anarchists and traitors back in the 19th century.
Plus, a civilian trial will be over quicker.