Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
313 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, kjsimons, marc9000 (4 members, 309 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,897 Year: 21,933/19,786 Month: 496/1,834 Week: 496/315 Day: 92/82 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scotus rules 2nd amendment is an individual right
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 151 of 176 (476859)
07-27-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Artemis Entreri
07-24-2008 12:29 PM


Artemis Entreri, post #111 writes:

Do we ever talk about British laws? I doubt it.

Artemis Entreri, post #144 writes:

Start a thread on ridiculous laws in the UK, I got tons of ammo on that one.

It seems that your doubts were ill-founded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-24-2008 12:29 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 152 of 176 (476883)
07-28-2008 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2008 10:45 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:
What constitutes the "militia"

Currently? According to statute (which Congress has the right to do), it's the National Guard.

quote:
how is it "regulated"

By statute.

quote:
and at what point does it become regulated "well"?

When the Legislature passes the statutes.

quote:
pretty much the whole thing is ambiguous.

On the contrary, it is quite specific. Surely you're not saying that the only way to understand it is if statutes were written in, akin to the Seventh Amendment's right to jury if the amount in question is twenty dollars, are you?

quote:
The perfatory clause sets up the principle behind it but doesn't base the right specifically on it.

Even though it specifically says so? So when an amendment specifically states that it is talking about a militia, it really isn't?

The prefatory clause does exactly what it claims it doesn't do: Base the right specifically on it. That's the entire reason for it to exist. If it weren't, then the amendment would start with an ellipsis.

And yet, no matter how much you may wish it did, it starts with a phrase that specifically tells you what it means.

quote:
The right to arms is for the people, not for the militia.

Yes...in service of the militia. Your right to have a gun is not for your purposes. It's for the purpose of the State. Thus, the State has the right to regulate what guns meet that requirement.

quote:
Right, it starts with a perfatory clause which is the "justification".

But that directly contradcits your claim that "it but doesn't base the right specifically on it." Which is it?

quote:
But rights don't need to be justified

Irrelevant. Just because they don't "need" to be doesn't mean they can't be. The entire Constitution is set up via a justification.

quote:
The amendment is not meant to say that the people need guns just so they can have a militia.

Not "just." "Because." That's exactly what it says, exactly why it was made, and exactly how it has been interpreted up until now.

That's why State Constitutions go further. The Wyoming Constitution section on guns reads, "The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied."

quote:
Besides, the amendment was all kinds of chopped up and reworded and misworded.

No, it wasn't. Do not confuse modern grammar with that of 200 years ago.

quote:
It doesn't necessarily say that the reason that people need arms is for the militia.

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you?

You mean that part about the militia being necessary can be simply ignored? The Second Amendment does not begin with an ellipsis. It specifically states that the reason people need arms is for a militia.

quote:
It is just justifying the need by providing one reason that having arms is a good thing.

Indeed. And that means if we're going to be talking about other justifications for bearing arms, we're not going to find any help in the Second Amendment. The only justification to be found there is with regard to the militia.

quote:
That was just the one justification that was used

And thus the only one that it speaks to.

quote:
but it doesn't limit the right to just for the militia

The only justification it provides is limited to the militia. If you think there's another justification for owning a gun, you're going to have to look elsewhere.

quote:
and the justification wasn't even needed in the first place.

Irrelevant. Just because it doesn't "need" to be there doesn't it can't be.

The Second Amendment does not start with an ellipsis.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2008 10:45 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-28-2008 9:33 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 209 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 153 of 176 (476884)
07-28-2008 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by AZPaul3
07-24-2008 11:31 AM


AZPaul3 responds to me:

quote:
quote:
The amendment is justifying why you have a right to a gun and the reason that it gives is not hunting, self-defense, pleasure shooting, etc. Instead, it says that the reason you are allowed to have a gun is so that you can use it in defense of the State.

Exactly right. And this was the Court's reasoniong in recognizing the 2nd Amendment as embodying an "individual" right to keep and bear arms.


But that flies in the face of all previous decisions regarding the Second Amendment. You don't have an individual right to a gun. You have a collective right. That means you don't have a right to a gun for your, individual needs. Instead, you have a right to a gun for the collective needs of the State.

According to the Second Amendment.

quote:
The question now turns on whether that "right" is necessary any longer in our modern society.

Not at all. Even if the State comes up with its own defense mechanism, that can fail and the people will be called upon to defend the State.

And Scalia's claim that "We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach" seems to forget all about the First Amendment. It's called the "Lemon test."

But then again, Scalia isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

quote:
The Court's ruling, as you yourself have acknowledged, is correct.

Incorrect. I have said the exact opposite. The Court's ruling is fundamentally flawed. The Second Amendment does not say what Scalia claims. Note, even Scalia sees that he's screwed it up because he goes out of his way to point out that this ruling doesn't affect other rulings about the regulation of arms.

When you have to point out that your ruling which completely contradicts all previous rulings isn't supposed to be interpreted to mean that it contradicts all previous rulings, then you know you've screwed up somewhere.

quote:
For the purposes of forming a militia the people have an indiviual right to keep and bear arms.

All previous rulings have said that it is a collective right. Scalia's attempt to show those previous rulings wrong (and they very well might have been...decisions are made by people and people make mistakes) is laughable: He tries to do it backwards, starting with the conclusion and forcing the premises to fit...which means that the "prefatory" clause doesn't actually mean what it directly states.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by AZPaul3, posted 07-24-2008 11:31 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by AZPaul3, posted 07-28-2008 12:54 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 176 (476888)
07-28-2008 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Rrhain
07-28-2008 3:37 AM


quote:
What constitutes the "militia"
Currently? According to statute (which Congress has the right to do), it's the National Guard.
quote:
how is it "regulated"

By statute.
quote:
and at what point does it become regulated "well"?
When the Legislature passes the statutes.
quote:
pretty much the whole thing is ambiguous.
On the contrary, it is quite specific. Surely you're not saying that the only way to understand it is if statutes were written in, akin to the Seventh Amendment's right to jury if the amount in question is twenty dollars, are you?

Its not as crystal clear as you allude it to be…

quote:
The Militia Act of 1903 divided what had been the militia into what it termed the "organized" militia, created from portions of the former state guards to become state National Guard units, and the "unorganized" militia consisting of all males from ages 17 to 45, with the exception of certain officials and others, which is codified in 10 USC 311.
source

And:
quote:
Following the 2008 decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the de jure defintion of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence broadened once again. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times, and still today in this originalist decision, included both the Federally-organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States. "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range" (7) ... Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them"(23).
source

So, contrary to your claim in Message 134 that I am not part of a militia, it seems that I AM a part of the militia.

So right there you’re argument that the 2nd doesn’t grant me a right to a firearm because I am not a part of the militia falls apart and has been refuted.

quote:
The perfatory clause sets up the principle behind it but doesn't base the right specifically on it.
Even though it specifically says so? So when an amendment specifically states that it is talking about a militia, it really isn't?

The prefatory clause does exactly what it claims it doesn't do: Base the right specifically on it. That's the entire reason for it to exist. If it weren't, then the amendment would start with an ellipsis.

And yet, no matter how much you may wish it did, it starts with a phrase that specifically tells you what it means.


From here:

quote:
"The Second Amendment, unusually for constitutional provisions, contains a statement of purpose as well as a guarantee of a right to bear arms." 1 This unusual attribute, some argue, is reason for courts to interpret the Second Amendment quite differently than they interpret other constitutional provisions -- perhaps to the point of reading it as having virtually no effect on government action. 2

My modest discovery 3 is that the Second Amendment is actually not unusual at all: Many contemporaneous state constitutional provisions are structured similarly. Rhode Island's 1842 constitution, its first, provides.

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty

Compare this to the Second Amendment's

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.

The 1784 New Hampshire Constitution says

In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed

The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution -- followed closely by the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution and the 1786 Vermont Constitution -- says

The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.

I list dozens more such provisions in the Appendix.

These provisions, I believe, shed some light on the interpretation of the Second Amendment:

1. They show that the Second Amendment should be seen as fairly commonplace, rather than strikingly odd.

2. They rebut the claim that a right expires when courts conclude that the justification given for the right is no longer valid or is no longer served by the right.

3. They show that operative clauses are often both broader and narrower than their justification clauses, thus casting doubt on the argument that the right exists only when (in the courts' judgment) it furthers the goals identified in the justification clause.

4. They point to how the two clauses might be read together, without disregarding either.


quote:
Right, it starts with a perfatory clause which is the "justification".

But that directly contradcits your claim that "it but doesn't base the right specifically on it." Which is it?

It is that the justification does not limit the right to the justification.

quote:
Besides, the amendment was all kinds of chopped up and reworded and misworded.

No, it wasn't. Do not confuse modern grammar with that of 200 years ago.

Yes, it was. It isn't important to my point though, but for your information, I was referring to all this stuff:

quote:
The first part of the of the Second Amendment is a shortened version of language found in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, largely the work of George Mason. Similar language appears in many of the Revolutionary Era state Constitutions. This Declaration states
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
[snip]
The original text of what became the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor of the House of Representatives of the first session of the First Congress was:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person
[snip]
. On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on August 17 and August 20.[48] These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the U.S. Senate:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:
A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The Senate returned to this Amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "For the common defence" next to the words "Bear Arms" was defeated.[51] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:
A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the Amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":
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.
This version was transmitted to the states for ratification.
source

quote:
It doesn't necessarily say that the reason that people need arms is for the militia.

(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
You mean that part about the militia being necessary can be simply ignored? The Second Amendment does not begin with an ellipsis. It specifically states that the reason people need arms is for a militia.
quote:
It is just justifying the need by providing one reason that having arms is a good thing.

Indeed. And that means if we're going to be talking about other justifications for bearing arms, we're not going to find any help in the Second Amendment. The only justification to be found there is with regard to the militia.
quote:
That was just the one justification that was used

And thus the only one that it speaks to.
quote:
but it doesn't limit the right to just for the militia

The only justification it provides is limited to the militia. If you think there's another justification for owning a gun, you're going to have to look elsewhere.
quote:
and the justification wasn't even needed in the first place.

Irrelevant. Just because it doesn't "need" to be there doesn't it can't be.
The Second Amendment does not start with an ellipsis.

The 2nd starts with a justification. That justification does not limit the right to that justification. Even if the right was limited to the justification, the militia, individuals not in the National Guard would still be granted the right to firearms by the 2nd amendment. Your position is indefensible.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed the size=1 text to size=2 (normal size) for the material quoted from "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment...". That was a lot of fine print to try to read.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Rrhain, posted 07-28-2008 3:37 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4781
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 155 of 176 (476909)
07-28-2008 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Rrhain
07-28-2008 3:50 AM


Exactly right. And this was the Court's reasoning in recognizing the 2nd Amendment as embodying an "individual" right to keep and bear arms.

But that flies in the face of all previous decisions regarding the Second Amendment.

Irrelevant.

You don't have an individual right to a gun. You have a collective right. That means you don't have a right to a gun for your, individual needs. Instead, you have a right to a gun for the collective needs of the State.

According to the Second Amendment.

The Court disagrees. They interpret the Founders’ reasoning as being there can be no militia without the individual right. The two are inseparable.

And Scalia's claim that "We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach" seems to forget all about the First Amendment. It's called the "Lemon test."

“Interest-balancing” in the vernacular of the Court is politically-based and not the same as recognizing legitimate State interest in regulation of rights. It is a fine line and I understand the confusion.

BTW, Lemon did not seek to limit the peoples’ right to religious practice but limit the government’s rights to limit its exercise contrary to the First Amendment. This was a bold restriction against government’s attempts to overstep the establishment clause. Neither “interest-balancing” nor compelling State interest was established in Lemon.

Better cites would have been US v Williams (Kiddy Porn v First Amendment) or Baltimore v Bouknight (Child protection v Fifth Amendment). These do place limits on Constitutional rights by compelling State interest.

But then again, Scalia isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

If you have ever met the man, as I have, you would know otherwise. He certainly is sharper in Constitutional Law than anyone on this forum.

When you have to point out that your ruling which completely contradicts all previous rulings isn't supposed to be interpreted to mean that it contradicts all previous rulings, then you know you've screwed up somewhere.

Wrong interpretation based on a layman’s incomplete knowledge of the workings of the law. The Court is recognizing that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating the right, but only to the degree that it does not usurp the right in total. And that right is now an individual one. The DC ordinance overstepped this line.

See Williams and Brouknight above.

All previous rulings have said that it is a collective right.

Irrelevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Rrhain, posted 07-28-2008 3:50 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

skepticfaith
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 71
From: NY, USA
Joined: 08-29-2006


Message 156 of 176 (476922)
07-28-2008 5:16 PM


Charlton Heston
In Michael Moore's Bowling Columbine movie, Charlton Heston gave the answer.
Politically incorrect but true:

Moore: Why does Canada with Gun Control Laws have so much less crime than America.

Heston: Perhaps it has more to do with the people with different ETHNICITIES in America.

Moore: WHAT ? WHat do you mean by that?

Heston: There are different numbers of people of certain ethnicity in America vs Canada. ... Different backgrounds

Moore: What are you trying to say.

Heston: The interview is over, I have nothing else to say.


Guns don't kill people, People do.

You can kill someone with a pitchfork or with a car should we ban those too?


Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by DrJones*, posted 07-28-2008 5:21 PM skepticfaith has responded
 Message 160 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-28-2008 6:11 PM skepticfaith has not yet responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2020
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 157 of 176 (476924)
07-28-2008 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by skepticfaith
07-28-2008 5:16 PM


Re: Charlton Heston
Heston: Perhaps it has more to do with the people with different ETHNICITIES in America.

This doesn't make any sense, does the US have ethnic groups that we here in Canada do not?


soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by skepticfaith, posted 07-28-2008 5:16 PM skepticfaith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by skepticfaith, posted 07-28-2008 5:57 PM DrJones* has responded

skepticfaith
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 71
From: NY, USA
Joined: 08-29-2006


Message 158 of 176 (476931)
07-28-2008 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by DrJones*
07-28-2008 5:21 PM


Re: Charlton Heston
Simply look up US crime statistics:
Look at the breakdown by race on who commits violent crime.

Also look up crime statistics on other countries by country and by race.

Draw your own conclusions but clearly guns are not the issue here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by DrJones*, posted 07-28-2008 5:21 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by DrJones*, posted 07-28-2008 6:50 PM skepticfaith has not yet responded

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2566 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 159 of 176 (476935)
07-28-2008 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dr Adequate
07-26-2008 11:13 PM


You're getting good at this hypocrisy thing, aren't you?

almost as good as you are at taking me out of context.

though i have much to learn about your inability to stay on the topic at hand.

Have you ever seen a monarch up close or lived under a constitutional monarchy?

yes. no.

Have you ever seen heroin up close or injected it?

yes. no.

Have you ever seen a murder up close or committed one?

yes. no.

Does driving too fast make a man especially qualified to set the speed limit?

yes.

can you stay on topic or is that not possible for you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2008 11:13 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2566 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 160 of 176 (476937)
07-28-2008 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by skepticfaith
07-28-2008 5:16 PM


Re: Charlton Heston
everyone know's that answer, but they all want to be politically correct, or they have another agenda besides reducing crime.

thanks for acknowledging this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by skepticfaith, posted 07-28-2008 5:16 PM skepticfaith has not yet responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2020
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 161 of 176 (476942)
07-28-2008 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by skepticfaith
07-28-2008 5:57 PM


Re: Charlton Heston
So does the US have ethnic groups that we don't?


soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by skepticfaith, posted 07-28-2008 5:57 PM skepticfaith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-29-2008 5:36 PM DrJones* has responded

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2566 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 162 of 176 (477043)
07-29-2008 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by DrJones*
07-28-2008 6:50 PM


Re: Charlton Heston
the ethic groups are similar but the numbers, and concentrations are much different.

i cannot say all that i wish to for fear of taking this thread somewhere else and the abusive way some are allowed to completely abandon rule #10 at will.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by DrJones*, posted 07-28-2008 6:50 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by DrJones*, posted 07-29-2008 6:44 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2020
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 163 of 176 (477046)
07-29-2008 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Artemis Entreri
07-29-2008 5:36 PM


Re: Charlton Heston
the ethic groups are similar but the numbers, and concentrations are much different.

So Heston's answer of:
Perhaps it has more to do with the people with different ETHNICITIES in America.

Doesn't actually answer the question.


soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-29-2008 5:36 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-30-2008 10:56 AM DrJones* has not yet responded

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2566 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 164 of 176 (477108)
07-30-2008 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by DrJones*
07-29-2008 6:44 PM


Re: Charlton Heston
it does if you can read between the lines, though most of us already know the reason why. this little game of beating around the bush is kinda dumb IMO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by DrJones*, posted 07-29-2008 6:44 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Granny Magda, posted 07-30-2008 11:10 AM Artemis Entreri has responded

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 165 of 176 (477114)
07-30-2008 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Artemis Entreri
07-30-2008 10:56 AM


Re: Charlton Heston
it does if you can read between the lines, though most of us already know the reason why. this little game of beating around the bush is kinda dumb IMO.

Then why don't you just come out and say what you mean? Is it because you suspect that you are going to be accused of racism? If you have the courage to stand by your convictions, let's have out with it.


Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-30-2008 10:56 AM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-30-2008 12:20 PM Granny Magda has responded
 Message 169 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2008 1:48 PM Granny Magda has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019