Remember me
▼ Content

One reason for social distancing/isolation



Page 12 of 20<<<1011121314>>>
07-06-2020 11:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
If a particular country wishes to make all arms legal and to prevent the government from infringing on any right to bear arms, there is no such thing as any "convention" that can bar it from doing so.
You have all be crystal clear now. Any weapon from a switch blade to a nuclear war head must be legal in your opinions if the constitution is to be followed.

All weapons are legal.
tmiddles wrote:
No one agrees with you of course including SCOTUS,

They don't get a choice. All weapons are legal.
tmiddles wrote:
POTUS,

They don't get a choice. All weapons are legal.
tmiddles wrote:
or the populous,

You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you.
tmiddles wrote:
(in all time, for all 3)

You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you.
tmiddles wrote:
so it's really just a very interesting detail about the three of you.

You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you.
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Holy Quote and Link...

False authority fallacy. Only the Constitution is the authoritative reference to the Constitution.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-06-2020 11:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
Why isn't the 2nd amendment interpreted in 2 parts - 1)bearing arms for a militia and 2) bearing arms for the individual themself?
It has to parts, related to the rights of self defense.
keepit wrote:
Two different situations without the ability of one part to interfere with the other part.
Neither interferes with the other.
keepit wrote:
It is what people did back then (both militias and individuals bore arms).
They still do today.
keepit wrote:
Re: interpreting the constitution.
The word "interpret" doesn't need to be used.
Now you are attempting to undefine 'interpret'. Learn English.
keepit wrote:
Think of it this way - the SCOTUS reads the Constitution and the issue brought before it. Then a series electrical impulses occur in each of the Justices brains. You don't have to call them "interpret".
Then a decision is made regarding the meaning of the Constitution and the issue. Done.

The Court does not have the authority to interpret or change the Constitution.
keepit wrote:
The Constitution doesn't say that electrical activity should not occur in the Justices brains after reading the Constitution and the issue brought before it. The Justices simply read and then decide. It is what they do and it is according to the decision of 1803 (Judicial Review).
KISS (keep it simple stupid).

No court has the authority to change or interpret the Constitution.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-06-2020 11:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
IBD,
In general i agree with the gist of what you just posted but the Constitution doesn't have the words training, marching, drilling, organizing or PREPARING. So, do you say that those activities can't be done?


There is not authorization given to the federal government to ban these activities either.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-06-2020 11:23
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...a nuclear war head must be legal in your opinions if the constitution is to be followed.
All weapons are legal.
I think you, IBD and GFM have made your very unique and bazaar point of view very clear. It would be a terrifying world to live in but I need not fear it because it's so exotic that not a single organization, including the NRA, is it's champion.
07-06-2020 12:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...a nuclear war head must be legal in your opinions if the constitution is to be followed.
All weapons are legal.
I think you, IBD and GFM have made your very unique and bazaar point of view very clear. It would be a terrifying world to live in but I need not fear it because it's so exotic that not a single organization, including the NRA, is it's champion.


You don't get to speak for everyone. You do not get to speak for the members of the NRA. You only get to speak for you.

All weapons are legal. Hoplophobia. You don't get to change the Constitution.
You are surrounded by people that own guns, swords, knives capable of killing, explosives and people that know how to make them and use them, and the chemicals needed to make all kinds of nerve agents and toxic gas as well as people that know how to make these agents and toxic gases.

You already live in fear, and there's nothing you can do about it.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 07-06-2020 12:39
08-06-2020 01:19
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
Think of what the Justices do as manipulating 0's and 1's. It's not interpreting. Some people say it is but so what.
Weapons can be limited for practical purposes. Justices decide many cases on the basis of practicality. Free speech can be limited as in not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre. It's not practical. Freedom to have nuclear weapons isn't practical. Ban them.
There you have it, 0's and 1's and practicality.
Edited on 08-06-2020 01:21
08-06-2020 01:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
keepit wrote: Weapons can be limited for practical purposes.

Are you saying that the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed for practical purposes?

Are you saying that the government, including a tyrannical government, gets to determine what's "practical"?


keepit wrote: Free speech can be limited as in not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

That's not a limit on speech. That's a limit on action. Laws make actions illegal, not speech.

There is nothing illegal about the exclamation "Fire!"

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-06-2020 01:33
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
IBD,
Don't you get tired of semantics. Your semantics don't convince me of anything.
08-06-2020 01:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
keepit, don't you get tired of ignorance? ... or is it exactly the bliss you've been searching for all your life?

.
Attached image:

08-06-2020 03:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
Think of what the Justices do as manipulating 0's and 1's.

False dichotomy fallacy. False equivalence fallacy.
keepit wrote:
It's not interpreting.

It is. Your attempt at undefining 'interpret' isn't going to wash.
keepit wrote:
Some people say it is but so what.

You know very well what. You are just trying to undefine 'interpret' to avoid dealing with the Constitution that you keep denying.
keepit wrote:
Weapons can be limited for practical purposes.

All weapons are legal. YOU don't get to decide what is 'practical', and neither does the court.
keepit wrote:
Justices decide many cases on the basis of practicality.

They have not authority to interpret or change the Constitution.
keepit wrote:
Free speech can be limited as in not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

Not by the federal government. Congress can pass no law limiting free speech. States can, however, since the 1st amendment does not apply to them. They each follow their own constitutions.
keepit wrote:
It's not practical.

It is practical. And it works. Remember, the 2nd amendment is not the first amendment.
keepit wrote:
Freedom to have nuclear weapons isn't practical. Ban them.

YOU don't get to decide what is 'practical' or to limit or ban guns based on 'practicality'. Neither does the court. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that mentions 'practical'. Adding 'practical' to the Constitution is changing the Constitution.
keepit wrote:
There you have it, 0's and 1's and practicality.

Invalid proof by false equivalence, by irrelevance, by false authority, by bulverism, and by conflation.

You have a bad case of hoplophobia.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-06-2020 03:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
IBD,
Don't you get tired of semantics. Your semantics don't convince me of anything.


No semantics involved here. YOU are trying to raise a semantic argument out of nothing. It's what you idiot liberals do.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-06-2020 04:34
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
ITN,
I'm not an idiot. I checked with Wikipedia. It declared me a non-idiot. Go to Wikipedia and see for yourself. They keep a list.
Edited on 08-06-2020 04:40
08-06-2020 17:24
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
If a particular country wishes to make all arms legal and to prevent the government from infringing on any right to bear arms, there is no such thing as any "convention" that can bar it from doing so.
You have all be crystal clear now. Any weapon from a switch blade to a nuclear war head must be legal in your opinions if the constitution is to be followed.

Yup.

tmiddles wrote:
No one agrees with you of course

You don't speak for others.

tmiddles wrote:
including SCOTUS, POTUS, or the populous, (in all time, for all 3) so it's really just a very interesting detail about the three of you.

Ignoring the fact that you have not spoken to (nor asked) "all people of all time", and the fact that you don't speak for others, you're arguing a paradox, dude...

[1] Nobody (in all time) agrees with IBdaMann.
[2] ITN and gfm7175 agree with IBdaMann.

My "favorite" (not) uncle also loves to argue such paradoxes, due to his habitual lying about damn near everything. He also has a difficult time keeping track of his lies (his stories change each time they're told). It's much better to just be honest in your dealings with others.

tmiddles wrote:
" 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt's solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, argued that the Second Amendment is "restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security." Furthermore, Jackson said, the language of the amendment makes clear that the right "is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state." The Court agreed, unanimously. " link

Ignored on sight. A court case is not the US Constitution.
Edited on 08-06-2020 17:30
08-06-2020 19:09
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
The Supreme Court Justices are doing Judicial Review. Forget the word "interpret" if you don't like it. "Judicial Review" is officially ok for the Supreme Court to do.
I don't know what else they do.

Dictionary.com -- Judicial Review - the power of a court to evaluate the constitutionality of a law.
Edited on 08-06-2020 19:24
08-06-2020 19:13
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
keepit wrote:
The Supreme Court Justices are doing Judicial Review. Forget the word "interpret" if you don't like it. "Judicial Review" is officially ok for the Supreme Court to do.
I don't know what else they do.

ARF.

Rejection of the US Constitution.
08-06-2020 19:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote:
" 1939, in U.S. v. Miller, in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt's solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, argued that the Second Amendment is "restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security." Furthermore, Jackson said, the language of the amendment makes clear that the right "is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state." The Court agreed, unanimously. " link


The Supreme Court clarified in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER that:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Also, the handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-06-2020 19:50
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
IBD,
Don't forget, there are precedents that limit the amendments in a practical way such as the prohibition of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It's one of the first things they teach you in law school. As an analogy it would be practical to limit the possession of plutonium by private individuals even though plutonium is a weapon. As a matter of fact there are laws pertaining to possession of radioactive material.
You should be grateful that there is no law preventing the possession of a haywire mind like you have.
08-06-2020 21:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
I'm not an idiot. I checked with Wikipedia. It declared me a non-idiot. Go to Wikipedia and see for yourself. They keep a list.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-06-2020 21:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
The Supreme Court Justices are doing Judicial Review.

The Supreme court does not have authority to change or interpret the Constitution.
keepit wrote:
Forget the word "interpret" if you don't like it.

Trying for your semantic argument out of nothing again, eh?
keepit wrote:
"Judicial Review" is officially ok for the Supreme Court to do.

The Supreme court does not not have authority to change or interpret the Constitution.
keepit wrote:
I don't know what else they do.

Dictionary.com -- Judicial Review - the power of a court to evaluate the constitutionality of a law.

The Supreme court does not have authority to 'evaluate', interpret, or change the Constitution.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-06-2020 21:18
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(280)
Here in Estonia I thank god that people do not have much firearms because estonians and russians like to drink a lot of alcohol. On the other hand I understand why the situation in the US is different. Black people are physically much more stronger than white and it would be a nightmare to live there being white if you do not have a way do defend yourself.
08-06-2020 21:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
keepit wrote: IBD,Don't forget, there are precedents that limit the amendments in a practical way such as the prohibition of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

I just addressed this. There is nothing illegal about the exclamation "Fire!"

Dangerous and disruptive behavior, however, can be prohibited.

Free speech cannot be assailed. Actions, however, can be. It's one of the first things they teach you in law school.

keepit wrote: As an analogy it would be practical to limit the possession of plutonium by private individuals even though plutonium is a weapon.

Plutonium cannot be barred as a weapon nor can any right to keep and bear arms be infringed.

Plutonium can, however, be regulated as a hazardous material.

keepit wrote: As a matter of fact there are laws pertaining to possession of radioactive material.

... which are not laws pertaining to weapons.
Attached image:

08-06-2020 21:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
IBD,
Don't forget, there are precedents that limit the amendments in a practical way such as the prohibition of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

It is legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
keepit wrote:
It's one of the first things they teach you in law school.

Get your money back. Your law school sucks.
keepit wrote:
As an analogy it would be practical

The word 'practical' does not exist in the Constitution of the United States.
keepit wrote:
to limit the possession of plutonium by private individuals

it is legal to own plutonium.
keepit wrote:
even though plutonium is a weapon.

Anything can be a weapon. A handful of coins can be a weapon. A magazine can be a weapon.
keepit wrote:
As a matter of fact there are laws pertaining to possession of radioactive material.

Only as to the manner of possessing it. Keep the stuff shielded and properly handled. Otherwise it is legal to possess plutonium or uranium. I can buy uranium ore right now on Amazon. Not much different for possessing explosives, which I do.

keepit wrote:
You should be grateful that there is no law preventing the possession of a haywire mind like you have.

You are still trying to make an extreme argument. That is a fallacy.

All weapons are legal.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 08-06-2020 21:31
08-06-2020 22:09
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
ITN,
You misinterpreted my post again but no surprise there. I didn't go to law school but it's generous of you to think i did.
08-06-2020 23:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
You misinterpreted my post again but no surprise there.

Not a bit of it. Now you are going to try to deny what you said (typical liberal).
keepit wrote:
I didn't go to law school but it's generous of you to think i did.

I know you didn't go to law school. It's obvious. Strawman fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 08-06-2020 23:16
09-06-2020 00:50
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
IBD,
Don't forget that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is both and action and a "speech".
There is often more than one meaning to a single word. That is where many of your interpretations occur i would say.
09-06-2020 01:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
IBD,
Don't forget that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is both and action and a "speech".
There is often more than one meaning to a single word. That is where many of your interpretations occur i would say.


It is legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-06-2020 02:57
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
You misconstrued my post ITN. It's illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire.
09-06-2020 03:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
You misconstrued my post ITN. It's illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire.


Lie. It is legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-06-2020 16:22
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
keepit wrote:
You misconstrued my post ITN. It's illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire.

What if I yelled "squirrel" in a crowded theater? ... or "water"... or "shark"... or "Donald Trump"??


There is nothing illegal about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
Edited on 09-06-2020 16:24
10-06-2020 13:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
gfm7175 wrote:There is nothing illegal about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
So you would agree with ITN that along with a convicted felon owning a nuclear warhead any type of speech is legal right GFM?

So if someone posted your social security number, credit cards, bank, and other personal and private details online that would be legal in your view.

Or if someone yelled "detonate the bomb now Billy" in a crowded theater prior to their comrade Billy detonating the bomb, that would also be legal speech right? I mean in your view (it's actually super illegal and you guys are super wrong).

Or what if you said something that wasn't true in court? Gave false testimony. That's speech. That legal too?

Hey, how about on our podcast you speak James Patterson's new novel, word for word, chapter by chapter. That's a whole lot of illegal speech because it's a copyright violation.

Also does it make sense that the constitution would override laws that existed, and were not repealed nor was their discussion of them being repealed, prior to the Constitution being ratified, without the Constitution itself dealing with them?
Edited on 10-06-2020 13:13
10-06-2020 16:55
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:There is nothing illegal about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
So you would agree with ITN that along with a convicted felon owning a nuclear warhead any type of speech is legal right GFM?

RE: the words of yours that I have underlined... Don't think that I didn't catch what you are attempting to do there, you sly lil tpiddles you... RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
So if someone posted your social security number, credit cards, bank, and other personal and private details online that would be legal in your view.

This would be an act of disclosing the private/personal information of others, not speech. There is nothing illegal about posting numbers online (such as 342782149238). RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
Or if someone yelled "detonate the bomb now Billy" in a crowded theater prior to their comrade Billy detonating the bomb, that would also be legal speech right? I mean in your view (it's actually super illegal and you guys are super wrong).

There is nothing illegal about yelling the words "detonate the bomb now Billy". RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
Or what if you said something that wasn't true in court? Gave false testimony. That's speech. That legal too?

No, that would be perjury. RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
Hey, how about on our podcast you speak James Patterson's new novel, word for word, chapter by chapter. That's a whole lot of illegal speech because it's a copyright violation.

No, that would be the unauthorized distribution of the intellectual property of others. RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
Also does it make sense that the constitution would override laws that existed, and were not repealed nor was their discussion of them being repealed, prior to the Constitution being ratified, without the Constitution itself dealing with them?

RQAA.
10-06-2020 23:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
gfm7175 wrote:
There is nothing illegal about yelling the words "detonate the bomb now Billy".
There is if it's instructing Billy to detonate the bomb!

So you concur with the court on fraud and intellectual property limits (neither of which appear in the 1st amendment). Why is that? (again they do not appear in the 1st amendment at all).

Why don't you concur with the courts on:
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
?

You seem selective.
11-06-2020 00:40
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
There is nothing illegal about yelling the words "detonate the bomb now Billy".
There is if it's instructing Billy to detonate the bomb!

So you concur with the court on fraud and intellectual property limits (neither of which appear in the 1st amendment). Why is that? (again they do not appear in the 1st amendment at all).

Why don't you concur with the courts on:
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
?

You seem selective.

RQAA.

Read through the Constitution sometime...
11-06-2020 01:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
gfm7175 wrote:
Read through the Constitution sometime...
Awe ducking out so soon GFM?

I looked and Article VIII on identity theft seems to be missing.

So why is it that the crimes of disorderly conduct, criminal endangerment, inducing panic, that yelling fire in a theater make a speaker guilty of are somehow erased by the first amendment?

And are you saying that it IS illegal for a convicted felon to possess a nuclear warhead?
Edited on 11-06-2020 01:04
11-06-2020 01:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
There is nothing illegal about yelling the words "detonate the bomb now Billy".
There is if it's instructing Billy to detonate the bomb!

Correct. "Calls to action" are actions themselves and are illegal if the call to action is for something illegal.


tmiddles wrote: You seem selective.

I'm selective. Is that a bad thing? I discriminate! I have very discriminating tastes. I absolutely need my Turkish coffee prepared a certain way.
Attached image:

11-06-2020 01:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
Correct. "Calls to action" are actions themselves and are illegal if the call to action is for something illegal.


But you don't agree yelling fire in a crowded theater is criminal?
11-06-2020 01:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote:And are you saying that it IS illegal for a convicted felon to possess a nuclear warhead?

What is it you are saying?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-06-2020 01:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:There is nothing illegal about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
So you would agree with ITN that along with a convicted felon owning a nuclear warhead any type of speech is legal right GFM?
Nuclear warheads are not a form of speech.
tmiddles wrote:
So if someone posted your social security number, credit cards, bank, and other personal and private details online that would be legal in your view.
Illegal. It is violation of contract.
tmiddles wrote:
Or if someone yelled "detonate the bomb now Billy" in a crowded theater prior to their comrade Billy detonating the bomb, that would also be legal speech right? I mean in your view (it's actually super illegal and you guys are super wrong).
Yelling "detonate the bomb now Billy" is legal in crowded theaters. Detonating a bomb in crowded theaters is not. It is also not a form of speech. It is assault with a deadly weapon, and quite probably murder.
tmiddles wrote:
Or what if you said something that wasn't true in court? Gave false testimony. That's speech. That legal too?

I you want to lie in court, that's your business. Because you also made an oath to tell the truth, that becomes perjury, a punishable offense. It is like any other fraud.
tmiddles wrote:
Hey, how about on our podcast you speak James Patterson's new novel, word for word, chapter by chapter. That's a whole lot of illegal speech because it's a copyright violation.
Free speech does not mean speech without consequences of that free speech, idiot.
tmiddles wrote:
Also does it make sense that the constitution would override laws that existed, and were not repealed nor was their discussion of them being repealed, prior to the Constitution being ratified, without the Constitution itself dealing with them?

Irrelevant.

No argument presented. Semantic games. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 11-06-2020 01:19
11-06-2020 01:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:And are you saying that it IS illegal for a convicted felon to possess a nuclear warhead?

What is it you are saying?

.
That it's not unconstitutional for all types of weapons to be illegal for US citizens. Nuclear weapons among them.

Was that in doubt?
11-06-2020 01:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
There is nothing illegal about yelling the words "detonate the bomb now Billy".
There is if it's instructing Billy to detonate the bomb!

So you concur with the court on fraud and intellectual property limits (neither of which appear in the 1st amendment). Why is that? (again they do not appear in the 1st amendment at all).

Why don't you concur with the courts on:
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
?

You seem selective.


Semantic games. No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Page 12 of 20<<<1011121314>>>





Join the debate One reason for social distancing/isolation:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Safe Distancing Video004-04-2020 06:28
Wind power is the earliest way to generate power, but there's a reason it stopped being used.1321-02-2020 20:12
Reason why companies are not converting to 100% electric, focusing on Porsche1806-12-2019 23:29
Is reason for climate change correct?4830-08-2019 03:14
Why we won't approach the real reason behind climate change.6819-08-2019 07:18
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact