Members banned from this thread: cotton


User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 35 of 38 FirstFirst ... 253132333435363738 LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 378

Thread: Shocking poll finds many Americans now want to secede from the United States

  1. #341
    Points: 80,720, Level: 69
    Level completed: 28%, Points required for next Level: 1,730
    Overall activity: 46.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    countryboy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    28219
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    28,649
    Points
    80,720
    Level
    69
    Thanks Given
    10,473
    Thanked 21,456x in 13,508 Posts
    Mentioned
    230 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    True, but the vast majority of people do not wear N95 masks. They wear those standard paper masks or cloth masks and a lot of people who do wear N95s don't wear or fit them properly, negating most of their effectiveness.
    N95 masks have only recently become widely available again, and of course, like many things, they have doubled in price. And yes, they only come in one size, so, many people will not have a good fit.
    Cutesy Time is OVER

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to countryboy For This Useful Post:

    Cletus (07-31-2021),stjames1_53 (08-01-2021)

  3. #342
    Points: 143,765, Level: 91
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 2,885
    Overall activity: 78.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    43647
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    57,490
    Points
    143,765
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    56,065
    Thanked 43,652x in 28,242 Posts
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think people should try wearing an N-95 mask all day before they answer this. Venting certainly helps but N-95 certainly interferes with breathing and collect moisture, bacteria, snarts, spit, sweat...
    Vented helps quite a bit but even with vented mask the breaks are very welcome where they can be removed and hopefully tossed.

    They are asking school kids to do what working adults only tolerate because they are getting paid and know the alternative is worse. The poor kids will get in trouble for lifting their masks for a minute to breathe.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to carolina73 For This Useful Post:

    Cletus (07-31-2021),stjames1_53 (08-01-2021)

  5. #343
    Points: 52,081, Level: 55
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 469
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2378
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19,121
    Points
    52,081
    Level
    55
    Thanks Given
    1,698
    Thanked 2,368x in 2,004 Posts
    Mentioned
    284 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    Make the most of it.




    No. I don't drink.




    There is no coming "assault weapons ban". Biden might attempt one, but it would never stand in the courts. The damned Constitution thing keep getting in his way.




    Well, it seems to be a subject that is important to you, so we can start there.




    I don't need anything new. The issue was decided on December 15th, 1791.
    So your argument is this: "..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

    Your thesis hangs on that one line and anything that crosses that line you consider to be unconstitutional.

    I have shown many times before that gun control/regulation has a very long history in this country and something that was thought necessary. I have picked up an article here that is well sourced, and I'd like you to read it all, and digest it before you raise a quick and uninformative reply.

    https://theconversation.com/five-typ...rs-loved-85364

    I have been researching and writing about the history of gun regulation and the Second Amendment for the past two decades. When I began this research, most people assumed that regulation was a relatively recent phenomenon, something associated with the rise of big government in the modern era. Actually, while the founding generation certainly esteemed the idea of an armed population, they were also ardent supporters of gun regulations.

    The American Revolution did not sweep away English common law. In fact, most colonies adopted common law as it had been interpreted in the colonies prior to independence, including the ban on traveling armed in populated areas. Thus, there was no general right of armed travel when the Second Amendment was adopted, and certainly no right to travel with concealed weapons. Such a right first emerged in the United States in the slave South decades after the Second Amendment was adopted. The market revolution of the early 19th century made cheap and reliable hand guns readily available. Southern murder rates soared as a result.


    That is a sampling of my argument against the one line: "shall not be Infringed". There are a host of (objective) books and websites that get into the history of gun control in the United States. Not the least of which was the banning of carrying guns in some frontier towns and cities: i.e. Tombstone Arizona, and for good reason when we consider the context and purposes of such bannings.

    Please get grounded in the material; one line is not an argument.
    Last edited by jet57; 07-31-2021 at 03:36 PM.

  6. #344
    Points: 84,523, Level: 70
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 327
    Overall activity: 12.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    12826
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Charleston South Carolina
    Posts
    38,294
    Points
    84,523
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    67,690
    Thanked 12,837x in 10,134 Posts
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Now_What View Post
    What is “Claude”?
    Claude: a lower intelligence; a lack of ability to learn; Now_What.
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our nation
    Pick your enemies carefully.






  7. #345
    Points: 84,523, Level: 70
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 327
    Overall activity: 12.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    12826
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Charleston South Carolina
    Posts
    38,294
    Points
    84,523
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    67,690
    Thanked 12,837x in 10,134 Posts
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jgarden477 View Post
    The "train" where young women will meekly submit to the dictates of wealthy, white, septuagenarian congressional politicians and Supreme Court Justices in Washington has long since left the station!

    Given that in 2020, the nation was subjected to 20% of the world's COVID-19 deaths despite less than 5% of its population, the political party that controlled both the White House, the Senate and is still steadfastly defending the rights of ANTI-VAXXERS to jeopardize the health of their fellow citizens, has lost all credibility when it comes to infringing on an individual's rights concerning "FREEDOM OF CHOICE!"
    Abortion as a centralized government declaration has no support of non-liberals. That's what I said, not the junk you wrote.

    We tend to oppose infanticide.
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our nation
    Pick your enemies carefully.






  8. #346
    Points: 84,523, Level: 70
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 327
    Overall activity: 12.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    12826
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Charleston South Carolina
    Posts
    38,294
    Points
    84,523
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    67,690
    Thanked 12,837x in 10,134 Posts
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    So your argument is this: "..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

    Your thesis hangs on that one line and anything that crosses that line you consider to be unconstitutional.

    I have shown many times before that gun control/regulation has a very long history in this country and something that was thought necessary. I have picked up an article here that is well sourced, and I'd like you to read it all, and digest it before you raise a quick and uninformative reply.

    https://theconversation.com/five-typ...rs-loved-85364



    That is a sampling of my argument against the one line: "shall not be Infringed". There are a host of (objective) books and websites that get into the history of gun control in the United States. Not the least of which was the banning of carrying guns in some frontier towns and cities: i.e. Tombstone Arizona, and for good reason when we consider the context and purposes of such bannings.

    Please get grounded in the material; one line is not an argument.
    Who says those frontier towns were allowed to ban guns? How many courts were there? Who contested them?

    You present nothing about the right to be armed except to say it was more prevalent in the South.So was humidity. That's on the same level as your argument.
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our nation
    Pick your enemies carefully.






  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Captdon For This Useful Post:

    carolina73 (08-01-2021)

  10. #347

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 74,311, Level: 66
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 1,139
    Overall activity: 13.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    195693
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    32,310
    Points
    74,311
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    3,678
    Thanked 27,378x in 15,847 Posts
    Mentioned
    412 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    So your argument is this: "..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

    Your thesis hangs on that one line and anything that crosses that line you consider to be unconstitutional.

    I have shown many times before that gun control/regulation has a very long history in this country and something that was thought necessary. I have picked up an article here that is well sourced, and I'd like you to read it all, and digest it before you raise a quick and uninformative reply.

    https://theconversation.com/five-typ...rs-loved-85364



    That is a sampling of my argument against the one line: "shall not be Infringed". There are a host of (objective) books and websites that get into the history of gun control in the United States. Not the least of which was the banning of carrying guns in some frontier towns and cities: i.e. Tombstone Arizona, and for good reason when we consider the context and purposes of such bannings.

    Please get grounded in the material; one line is not an argument.
    You need to do better.

    Tombstone, Boston, the individual colonies... those are all LOCAL ordinances and have nothing to do with the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment.

    If you want to discuss it, start a thread. Such a discussion does not belong in the middle of this one.
    “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” - Barry Goldwater

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Cletus For This Useful Post:

    carolina73 (08-01-2021)

  12. #348
    Points: 52,081, Level: 55
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 469
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2378
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19,121
    Points
    52,081
    Level
    55
    Thanks Given
    1,698
    Thanked 2,368x in 2,004 Posts
    Mentioned
    284 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    You need to do better.

    Tombstone, Boston, the individual colonies... those are all LOCAL ordinances and have nothing to do with the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment.

    If you want to discuss it, start a thread. Such a discussion does not belong in the middle of this one.
    Yeah; all constitutionally legal.

  13. #349

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 74,311, Level: 66
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 1,139
    Overall activity: 13.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    195693
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    32,310
    Points
    74,311
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    3,678
    Thanked 27,378x in 15,847 Posts
    Mentioned
    412 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Yeah; all constitutionally legal.
    According to whom?

    The fact that something was not challenged in court does not mean it would withstand a constitutional challenge.

    The other thing is that the "incorporation doctrine", which made the the First, Second, Fourth and Eighth Amendments apply to the states did not go into effect until 1868. Prior o that, the Bill of Rights applied only to actions taken by the FEDERAL government. Prior to 1868, none of those rights guaranteed in the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution could be enforced at state level.
    “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” - Barry Goldwater

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Cletus For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (08-02-2021)

  15. #350
    Points: 52,081, Level: 55
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 469
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2378
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19,121
    Points
    52,081
    Level
    55
    Thanks Given
    1,698
    Thanked 2,368x in 2,004 Posts
    Mentioned
    284 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    According to whom?

    The fact that something was not challenged in court does not mean it would withstand a constitutional challenge.

    The other thing is that the "incorporation doctrine", which made the the First, Second, Fourth and Eighth Amendments apply to the states did not go into effect until 1868. Prior o that, the Bill of Rights applied only to actions taken by the FEDERAL government. Prior to 1868, none of those rights guaranteed in the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution could be enforced at state level.
    The logical conclusion concerning colonial America post revolution is that very early in our history gun control was active and legal really for the same reasons it is now. STILL nobody's sued over any of it, and I'm quite sure, given what Scalia wrote in the Heller decision, that the gun rights people are scared to do it. What other explanation is there? The source article I provided lists exactly why gun control was an issue in 1776, and even having THAT, as close to ratification date as all that was, nobody was worried about the second amendment.

    YOU can say all you want that any gun control is illegal under the phrase "shall not infringe", but as we've seen here, both American history and the law disagree with you.

    Thanks; it was a fun debate.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts