You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #36: To call that bullshit would insult the product of self-respecting cattle the world over. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-21-11 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. To call that bullshit would insult the product of self-respecting cattle the world over.
gejohnston (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-21-11 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #26

29. not even
Expecting one to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution IS EXACTLY moral and civilized. That is exactly what it is.

Only in your less than humble opinion.



iverglas (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-21-11 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #29

31. as I said in the thread I referred you to
it has precisely bugger all to do with my opinion. It is the "opinion" on which there is a human consensus. It is the "opinion" expressed in things like the 5th amendment to your Constitution, the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights, the constitutional Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the foundational documents of the majority of countries on earth: the inherent, inalienable right to life.

I happen to be on board with that consensus.

You apparently aren't.

Neither your opinion nor mine matters, it's just that mine is identical to human consensus, and yours is some weirdness apparently deriving from a recipe calling for excessive testosterone, abject self-interest and total ignorance of several centuries of human history.


No it is not. You may spin all you like, but the 5th Amendment does not require a person "to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution." I understand that your ignorance of US law is profound to say the least. You have demonstrated that fact on this board innumerable times--often with my kind assistance. But it is hard to believe that even you are this ignorant.

Produce any evidence that any competent court (and no, a clueless, condescending Canadian blowhard who thinks she can instruct a nation on its own law is not a court) has ever held this to be the case (without being overturned). Forget a legally binding holding; produce evidence that any competent court at the federal appeals court or higher level has ever said such a thing in dicta.

To claim that the 5th Amendment requires a person "to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution" is so appallingly ignorant and legally illiterate that I have a hard time believing you actually meant to say what you said. Surely this was another "mistyping"--like the time you smeared the abolitionists who authored the Fourteenth Amendment, right?

The Fifth Amendment, according to its own text, the text of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, and the historical record, is a limit on government power. By what logic can even you justify your drivel?

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_right...


You're running wild, iverglas. Do you actually think no one will call you on this crap?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
  -The (GOP/NRA) deadly force bill is wrongheaded (NH) jpak  Aug-20-11 09:30 AM   #0 
  - Let's hope the people win out over the veto...  ileus   Aug-20-11 09:51 AM   #1 
  - "the people" in this case would be Free Staters, Teabaggers & Assorted GOP-douchebags  jpak   Aug-20-11 10:12 AM   #2 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Aug-20-11 10:34 AM   #4 
     - Funny -- based on the vote tallies it looks like it's just the Republicans bashing the Democratic...  Tesha   Aug-20-11 11:29 AM   #6 
  - If they over ride the veto  Philippine expat   Aug-20-11 11:38 AM   #7 
  - Not working  Old Codger   Aug-20-11 10:17 AM   #3 
  - The file extension should be ".html" not ".htm".  ManiacJoe   Aug-20-11 06:10 PM   #24 
  - Here is the text of the bill.  GreenStormCloud   Aug-20-11 11:26 AM   #5 
  - the actual question is  iverglas   Aug-20-11 11:59 AM   #8 
  - not being a lawyer  gejohnston   Aug-20-11 01:35 PM   #13 
     - I already stated my problem with "know"  iverglas   Aug-20-11 01:41 PM   #14 
        - mostly because  gejohnston   Aug-20-11 01:52 PM   #16 
           - let's simplify it  iverglas   Aug-20-11 02:12 PM   #17 
              - very sincerely  gejohnston   Aug-21-11 12:22 AM   #25 
                 - that's a nonsense  iverglas   Aug-21-11 12:35 AM   #26 
                    - not even  gejohnston   Aug-21-11 01:14 AM   #29 
                       - as I said in the thread I referred you to  iverglas   Aug-21-11 01:43 AM   #31 
                          - The difference is  gejohnston   Aug-21-11 02:13 AM   #33 
                          - listen  iverglas   Aug-21-11 03:49 AM   #35 
                          - To call that bullshit would insult the product of self-respecting cattle the world over.  TPaine7   Aug-21-11 02:02 PM   #36 
                          - Beware ignorant blowhards, bearing insults  TPaine7   Aug-21-11 02:59 PM   #37 
  - I'm confused over section 627:4 IIIc  krispos42   Aug-20-11 04:44 PM   #21 
  - If you want to end this stuff FAST, get progressives to start defending themselves with force  saras   Aug-20-11 12:29 PM   #9 
  - so you're saying repukes only want other repukes to defend themselves?  ileus   Aug-20-11 01:31 PM   #12 
  - This looks like a typical SYG or Castle law  gejohnston   Aug-20-11 01:44 PM   #15 
  - your "knowledge" doesn't come into it  iverglas   Aug-20-11 02:21 PM   #19 
  - you sure about that  gejohnston   Aug-20-11 05:21 PM   #23 
     - No. Simply no. N. O.  iverglas   Aug-21-11 12:41 AM   #27 
        - wrong and  gejohnston   Aug-21-11 01:11 AM   #28 
           - I have no fucking clue what "wrong" means  iverglas   Aug-21-11 01:37 AM   #30 
              - your link is  gejohnston   Aug-21-11 02:22 AM   #34 
  - Excellent description...  ileus   Aug-20-11 04:50 PM   #22 
     - take shelter in any port in a storm if it saves the boat ...  iverglas   Aug-21-11 01:44 AM   # 
  - Not true at all. Your "feelings" have to be realistic to the situation.  GreenStormCloud   Aug-20-11 02:12 PM   #18 
  - I don't see much unreasonable in the bill. nt  SteveM   Aug-20-11 12:38 PM   #10 
  - Your link is insulting your argument.  ZombieHorde   Aug-20-11 01:04 PM   #11 
  - a link to make everybody happy  iverglas   Aug-20-11 02:30 PM   #20 
  - ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##  DU GrovelBot   Aug-21-11 01:44 AM   #32 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC