Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Drudge Retort

User Info

Buffalo_Bob

Subscribe to Buffalo_Bob's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Links

Raw video:June 08/08:Recently released footage:Welsh police confirmed that one of their helicopter crews had spotted an "unusual aircraft" flying over Cardiff earlier this month.

An investigation into the sighting had been launched, they said.

The police clarification came after tabloid newspaper The Sun reported a UFO had "attacked" a police helicopter, following it for several miles over the Bristol Channel.

read more


Comments

Larry Mohr

The second amendment says that a well regulated militia is necessary.

Why?

The second amendment allows citizens to be armed. What reason was given for that right?

I am for the right to bear arms--for all citizens--without restriction--as YOUR version of the second amendement is read.

However, that right is not found in the second amendment.

There need to be an amendment that clearly states that people have the right to keep weapons for self defense, and what those weapons may be.

The second amendment is all about State Militias and armiong State militias from a tryrannical Federal government.

"What Scalia did in his majority opinion was basically disregard the preamble about "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state."

But that's what concerned the Founders: the ability of states to defend themselves, as sovereign states."

www.progressive.org

The reason I favor an individual right to bear arms is because they kill themselves or family members more than anyone else. For every home invasion stopped with a handgun, I will show five other ways more effective in stopping such intrusions, and show five instances where guns killed their owner or some other non threatening individual.

Guns are for people too stupid and cowardly to think of other ways to protect themselves in their home. Guns most likely make your home a target for thieves who will break in to get your guns when you aren't home. You keep your guns in a safe? Say goodbye to your safe too. You might want to think about how quickly you can get your gun out of the safe if someone attacks you between your car and your house, or you open your door and find a gun in your face.

Guns are for stupid people. This country has its quota. Here is their future or the future of their children.

seattletimes.nwsource.com

wcbstv.com

www.kpho.com

message.snopes.com

www.ajc.com

These people and thousands more will die for your chicken shit self because you don't have the balls or brains to protect yourself without a gun.

Either the second amendment deals with a well regulated militia or it doesn't.

Either a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state or it isn't.

Either a 75 year old woman is a member of a well regulated militia or she isn't.

Either an armed well regulated militia means all citizens or it doesn't.

It seems to me that the second amendment is to protect the State from the Federal government.

It seems to me that the reason given in the second amendment for a well regulated militia is necessary to protect the State.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It seems to say that a well regulated militia is necessary. WHY is it necessary? A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State. It does not say a well regulated militia is necessary for the protection of home and family. The second amendment says the people should be well regulated and armed to protect the State.

The amendment allows States to have all the weapons of the Federal government--and is addressed to State Militia. Not every citizen. The idea was for the State Militia to protect their State and its citizens from a tyrannical Federal government.

The amendement also says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If this applies to individuals, anyone should be able to own any weapon--including nuclear arms.

That makes sense if you are the State Militia. It doesn't make sense for an individual.

I am for the right to keep and bear arms, but this court ruling infringes on that right.



I am for the right to bear arms, but that right is not in the second amendment.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2008-06-26 11:19 AM

Why don't you explain BB?

Posted by MURPHY at 2008-06-26 11:22 AM | Reply

The concept of citizens to bear arms is very simple to express. Something along the lines of--All citizens shall have the right to bear arms, and this right may not be infringed.

However, the Constitution brings in all kinds of other "unnecessary" words if that were the intent of the framers. People tend to ignore the other words, and only see--the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Some don't even see---"shall not be infringed, and only see--the people have the right to bear arms. I would bet you fall into the last category.

But what the sentence says, is that the reason people have the right to bear arms is that they are needed to protect the State. It doesn't say all citizens--it says only-- a well regulated militia--not anybody who can afford a weapon.

As to the "shall not be infringed", that means--no regulation--no limitation. No registration. Not on pistols--rifles--machine guns--bazookas--tanks--anti-
air craft guns--aircraft fighters and bombers--nuclear arms--biological arms--chemical arms.

The second amendment refers to the State Militias. Not the ordinary citizen. There can be no weapons charges against anyone anymore--all they have to do is have the money to get to the USSC, and whatever charges will be droppped on the "infringement" part of the amendment. Fine for State Militias--bad for citizens to have the right to nukes. The State Militias are well regulated--quite a difference there ya think?

"No, Bob, you've got it backwards once again. The same polls that you believe are BULLSHIT today were sacred (to you) only 2 weeks ago."

You are mistaken. The polls today are just as valid as the polls 2 weeks ago. YOU are the one who claims the polls showing Clinton ahead are invalid. I say all the polls are equally as valid.


"I realize your candidate didn't prevail,"

I don't care if it was Obama, Edwards, or Clinton. I am very happy with Obama as candidate. But speaking from looking at the stats--he is the second best candidate the dems could have put forth. The dem primary is flawed when it gives more weight to Alaska than Ohio. Clinton is not and never has been--"my candidate". My interest is that the dems put out the strongest candidat.


"and I realize the fact the current nominee is improving in all those pivotal Clinton states doesn't help your argument,"

You need to compare the two maps.

electoral-vote.com

electoral-vote.com

Clinton is stronger in Ohio, PA, FLA, and turns KY and WVa blue. Of the EVs on Obamas side, he is statistically tied in 138, including Ohio, Pa, MI, and FLA.


"but wanting to replay the nominating process at this point with different rules is...is..."

Only morons who can't read ever think I want to replay anything. As stated time and time again--this is about future primaries so dems don't put out the weakest candidate. Obama is the candidate, and I'm very OK with that---it is the rest of the country that I am worried about.

My point is that the primaries should be run to reflect the general election--giving the same weights to the states as the general election, and have the candidates run their campaign like they would for the general election--OR--run their campaign like the republicans run their campaign. Winner take all--just like the general election.


"...what's the word I'm looking for?"

Who knows--you think I want to do the primaries over again. The word for YOU is

moron.

Simple isn't it.

Let's try again

youtube.com

There's nothing out there. Ignore all reality.


"I continue to scoff."

Posted by Jomama at 2008-06-23 06:18 PM | Reply

Understandable--let's hope you carry that same skeptism towards the religions of the world.

Even people who have seen them don't believe in Alien visitation. They have to convince themselves that it isn't true, in order to cope with the world they know. The reality of Earth being visiting by extra-terrestrials would mean that mankind is not the most technically advance life form in the universe, and therefore subject to extermination at the whim of another species--very much like the fear a god places in mens hearts.

Personally I think there are many races of aliens, and even different factions within those races of aliens. Some want to help us, and some aren't so friendly.

However, the bible is based on the stories of the Sumerians--the first civilization--the first with writing and kingship and many more firsts.

www.ancientsites.com

The Sumerians have keft us cuneiform tablets telling us that the gods taught them everything they knew, and that the gods dictated the Enuma Elish to them. In addition, they said the gods were walking among them and leading them into battle--that their gods were there with them. No other civilization has ever said such things. All civilizations except the Sumerians worship gods that were active long ago. Their stories of Genesis--the Tower of Babel--the Garden of Eden--the Flood--all make more sense and have more logic than the biblical accounts.

Many passages in our bible are taken DIRECTLY from Enuma Elish. Case in point:

Genesis 1:26

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

What "us"---what "our". This passage says we look like god and we are just like him in our being--with emotions like love, hate, jealousy,anger, happiness. It makes sense when you put it in context with the originators of the passage. There were many gods, and they cross bred their genes with the local evolutionary biped capable of being fashioned into a "primitive worker" to do their work. That creation story makes more sense to me than the biblical story of a god that creates mankind to worship Him. What an ego--what a poor god we invented.

As for my--I believe the Sumerian "gods" were real. I think we look like them and they look like us. But these gods shouldn't be worshipped.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=As- wYmFYb3I

There's nothing out there. Ignore all reality.

Califchris

"Below, I've linked an interesting (albeit lengthy so I won't C&P it) article on ancient Egyptians and their use of mathematics. Scroll down to about the 14th paragraph and it tells how mathematic techniques were used in the building of pyrmids.

Use of math by ancient Egyptians"

I agree that math was used, and that the math described by your link was used. What I am saying is that the Egyptians didn't come up with that math, and that the Egyptians didn't understand that math. They were just the labor. All the math that was necessary tro build the pyramids have been attributed by to humans as the discoverers at a much later date than the pyramids.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

p.s. -- As for your comment re wondering how the treasures in the tombs were removed from pyramids when you claim there was only one entrance --


"If you'll remember when we were arguing this point on another thread awhile back, I proved to you that there was access to enter the pyramids via other entrances known to the builders and others who were closely involved in the building of the pyramids at that time. Also, there are many logical theories that some Egyptians closely involved in the original building of the pyramid had the treasures secretly removed before the pyramid was permanently sealed. In other words, the last few guys out of the pyramid just before they the entrance was permanently sealed also brought (and stole) the treasures out with them instead of leaving them behind in the Pharoh's tomb."

You did not "prove" anything. You merely stated that someone had said there was a way into the tomb with a rock that was hinged and could be opened easily and would look invisible when in place.

That is not "proof", and there is no evidence of such a hinged rock and place on the pyramid. In addition--whay would be the purpose of such a hinged rock? Do you think the Pahroah would want such easy access to his tomb? The "proof" would be to find that entrance you claim--so far, it ain't happened. To have the tomb sealed with three huge sliding stones that are still in place today to keep people out and to have a sliding door for easy access doesn't make much sense.

Your theory that the last few guys out stole all the stuff and then had the tomb sealed doesn't hold water either. First, the stuff wasn't the kind of thing you stick in your pocket. We are talking the Kings Body and a massive stone lid for his sarcophagus for starters. then probably at least a ton of other things. I doubt they would have sealed it up without a final inspection. I would think the treasures they looted would be well known and hard to sell. They couldn't send them to London or Paris or New York to fence them. I would think it would take every member of the Pyramid staff and every worker on the pyramid to be in on it in order for the theft to work.

Drudge Retort

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

RSS Spec