Constitution of the United States

[Ahura Mazda]

1. The Mujahadeen managed to do well against a vastly better-armed Soviet military in Afghanistan. So, massive firepower isn't everything.

2. If the Revolution has to happen, it would be better to have weapons at that time rather than go around trying to get a hold of one during the conflict.

3. Your perception of guns primarily being of benefit to criminals is largely driven, I believe, by media outlets. Few media sources regularly report stories of target shooting, hunting, or self-defense that doesn't actually involve shooting (brandishing a gun can drive a criminal away). Instead, they report what gets ratings, and that is gun violence. If all you hear are how guns are used by criminals against innocents, then that will drive perception.

In 1997, during our rash of school shootings, everyone constantly heard on the news about Luke Woodham killing a couple of people and injuring several others during a school shooting in Pearl, MS. What is rarely known by others (because it was almost never reported) was that the assistant principal went out to his truck to retrieve his own gun (because it was illegal for him to have it in the school building ) and held Luke with it until the cops arrived. Now, had the assistant principal not access to a gun, how many more people might have been killed/injured until the police arrived?

I am not going to argue with many of your statements above because I do not know enough about most of them. However, regarding Afghanistan the Mujahadeen were well equipped with heavy weaponry through the aid of other States. On their own they were losing.

 

[bell110]

I haven't gotten through this whole thread yet, but I have to comment on these two.

I disagree with this entirely.

No one has a right to call me a "***got." No one has the right to call an African American the n-word. In both these cases, the people who are being targeted by such slanderous words have every right to be offended and have every right to try to silence those who use their words for hateful purposes.

If you are using your words to invoke hate, you have trampled on your first amendment rights as far as I'm concerned.

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. You have the right to call anybody any name you want, as long as it doesn't harm somebody's reputation. You said some pretty hateful things about Palestinians in the other thread (and I realize you weren't speaking about "ALL" Palestinians).

Personally I feel that the First Amendment gives you the right to say anything you want, but it also gives you the right to get your ass kicked if you say something incredibly ******ed like calling a gay man a ***got and an African-American the n-word.

I hope you were joking. Nobody has the right to assault another person. I know people like that, who honestly believe that if you insult them, they have the right to beat you up. BUT, they are wussies (censored myself), and will bring two or three of thier buddies to jump you.

 

[SuBe]

I haven't gotten through this whole thread yet, but I have to comment on these two.



Wow, I couldn't disagree more. You have the right to call anybody any name you want, as long as it doesn't harm somebody's reputation. You said some pretty hateful things about Palestinians in the other thread (and I realize you weren't speaking about "ALL" Palestinians).

I agree, there is really no such thing as "reputation". I can, by my Rights, say or write anything about anyone I want, at any time. But, that person can sue for Libel or Slander if that statement I made prevents, or could prevent that person from making Profit. But that is not the Government censoring or punishing me for what I say, it is the individual. It would be a Civil Case, not Criminal. The 1st Amendment Guarentees my Right to make a Statement I want, and the Government can't come down on me, unless my actions incite a Riot.

I hope you were joking. Nobody has the right to assault another person. I know people like that, who honestly believe that if you insult them, they have the right to beat you up. BUT, they are wussies (censored myself), and will bring two or three of thier buddies to jump you.

I don't think that he meant you have a Right to Fight Someone for something they say. I do think that was a joke. But, you should expect something if you start yelling Biggoted Statements, and you could be punished for inciting a Riot or disturbing the Peace. And more than likely the Assailant won't do any time, because the court may feel it was justified.

 

[marcofthebeast]

I think Hippie Hunter's point was is that you do have the right to say anything you want to someone just don't be suprised if they retaliate.

 

[Franklin Richards]

I can't get the Preamble Song out of my head.

[YT]Q_TXJRZ4CFc&hl=en[/YT]

 

[The Senator]

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. You have the right to call anybody any name you want, as long as it doesn't harm somebody's reputation. You said some pretty hateful things about Palestinians in the other thread (and I realize you weren't speaking about "ALL" Palestinians).

It's not hateful if you speak the truth. Many Palestinian terrorists have lobbed rockets into Israeli neighborhoods, blown themselves up on buses and in marketplaces, kidnapped Israelis and murdered them in cold blood. And until they cease that behavior, and the Palestinian "government" stops sponsoring terrorism against Israel and approaches this situation peacefully, I do not believe they deserve a state.

But I have never referred to a Palestinian as a "towel head."

I mean, if you asked me, you said some pretty hateful things about Israelis as well. Saying they need to be kicked off their land and all... why, that's pretty hateful...

But anyway...

No one has a right to say hateful, disgusting things about someone, such as "those n*****s are stupid" or "those ***gots want to rape and convert your children!" They deserve to be silenced by whatever means necessary. Their beliefs do not benefit the overall well-being of our society.

I hope you were joking. Nobody has the right to assault another person. I know people like that, who honestly believe that if you insult them, they have the right to beat you up. BUT, they are wussies (censored myself), and will bring two or three of thier buddies to jump you.

The people who refer to some of us as "***gots" or African-Americans as the n-word are hateful, disgusting beings with a violent conscience. Some of us have to stand up for ourselves. Violence, in this sense, is warranted-- even more so if our opponents use violence themselves, as in the case of Matthew Shepard and Lawrence King, who did not deserve to be treated they way they were under ANY circumstances.

 

[wiegeabo]

It's not hateful if you speak the truth. Many Palestinian terrorists have lobbed rockets into Israeli neighborhoods, blown themselves up on buses and in marketplaces, kidnapped Israelis and murdered them in cold blood. And until they cease that behavior, and the Palestinian "government" stops sponsoring terrorism against Israel and approaches this situation peacefully, I do not believe they deserve a state.

But I have never referred to a Palestinian as a "towel head."

I mean, if you asked me, you said some pretty hateful things about Israelis as well. Saying they need to be kicked off their land and all... why, that's pretty hateful...

But anyway...

No one has a right to say hateful, disgusting things about someone, such as "those n*****s are stupid" or "those ***gots want to rape and convert your children!" They deserve to be silenced by whatever means necessary. Their beliefs do not benefit the overall well-being of our society.




The people who refer to some of us as "***gots" or African-Americans as the n-word are hateful, disgusting beings with a violent conscience. Some of us have to stand up for ourselves. Violence, in this sense, is warranted-- even more so if our opponents use violence themselves, as in the case of Matthew Shepard and Lawrence King, who did not deserve to be treated they way they were under ANY circumstances.

I disagree. I believe we do have the right to say what we want, despite how hateful or hurtful it is. Firstly, because I have no right to impose or force my beliefs on someone else, which is exactly what violence against those people is.

But I also believe that their hateful speech actually benefits society as a whole. Why? Because the more they spout their hatred and bigotry, the more society realizes that the hate-mongers are actually wrong and that they are nothing but stupid and/or ignorant. Yes, they may convert a few to their way of thinking, and that's sad. But, if the civil rights movement of the sixties showed us anything, it's that the hate-mongers do far more to hurt their cause and turn people away then they do in promoting their ideas.

 

[The Senator]

I disagree. I believe we do have the right to say what we want, despite how hateful or hurtful it is. Firstly, because I have no right to impose or force my beliefs on someone else, which is exactly what violence against those people is.

These people do not deserve to have those beliefs. They do not deserve the right to use hatespeech when referring to an entire group of people. That speech aims to divide our country, not unite it.

But I also believe that their hateful speech actually benefits society as a whole. Why? Because the more they spout their hatred and bigotry, the more society realizes that the hate-mongers are actually wrong and that they are nothing but stupid and/or ignorant. Yes, they may convert a few to their way of thinking, and that's sad. But, if the civil rights movement of the sixties showed us anything, it's that the hate-mongers do far more to hurt their cause and turn people away then they do in promoting their ideas.

Yes, the civil rights movement was successful, and it helped ward off many negative stereotypes associated with African Americans.

But after the height of the civil rights movement, the behavior displayed by many of those bigots did not disappear entirely. It still exists. It's just as vicious as ever. And the only way to stop that behavior is to 1) educate these people or 2) silence them by any means necessary. You don't benefit society as a whole if you continue to oppress an entire group of people who live their lives peacefully, be it through words or actions.

 

[bell110]

I agree, there is really no such thing as "reputation". I can, by my Rights, say or write anything about anyone I want, at any time. But, that person can sue for Libel or Slander if that statement I made prevents, or could prevent that person from making Profit. But that is not the Government censoring or punishing me for what I say, it is the individual. It would be a Civil Case, not Criminal. The 1st Amendment Guarentees my Right to make a Statement I want, and the Government can't come down on me, unless my actions incite a Riot.

That's what I meant when I said reputation. I should have been more specific.

I don't think that he meant you have a Right to Fight Someone for something they say. I do think that was a joke. But, you should expect something if you start yelling Biggoted Statements, and you could be punished for inciting a Riot or disturbing the Peace. And more than likely the Assailant won't do any time, because the court may feel it was justified.

Yeah, I think it was a joke too. But in my personal life, I know people who actually believe that. When I hear things like that I feel like I'm living in bizzaro world.

It's not hateful if you speak the truth. Many Palestinian terrorists have lobbed rockets into Israeli neighborhoods, blown themselves up on buses and in marketplaces, kidnapped Israelis and murdered them in cold blood. And until they cease that behavior, and the Palestinian "government" stops sponsoring terrorism against Israel and approaches this situation peacefully, I do not believe they deserve a state.

But I have never referred to a Palestinian as a "towel head."

The "truth" can be subjective at times. I don't want to derail this into another topic.

I mean, if you asked me, you said some pretty hateful things about Israelis as well. Saying they need to be kicked off their land and all... why, that's pretty hateful...

But anyway...

The difference between you an me is that I'm a hard core advocate of free speech. Even if my words are seen as hateful, I could care less because it's my right to say it. But you saying hateful things about someone, even if it is "true", then on the other hand say that if you say hateful things you trample your first amendment rights, that just seems hypocritical.

No one has a right to say hateful, disgusting things about someone, such as "those n*****s are stupid" or "those ***gots want to rape and convert your children!" They deserve to be silenced by whatever means necessary. Their beliefs do not benefit the overall well-being of our society.


The people who refer to some of us as "***gots" or African-Americans as the n-word are hateful, disgusting beings with a violent conscience. Some of us have to stand up for ourselves. Violence, in this sense, is warranted-- even more so if our opponents use violence themselves, as in the case of Matthew Shepard and Lawrence King, who did not deserve to be treated they way they were under ANY circumstances.

Sorry, I completely disagree. You have EVERY right to say ****** or ***got. And I know people who use the n-word and they are not "hateful, disgusting beings with a violent conscience", they're just rednecks. Yes, you have the right to stand up for you, but you can't be justified walking into an anti-gay meeting with a baseball bat and start breaking kneecaps. And know one is saying that you can't use violence to protect yourself from violence, you just can't use violence to silence someone who hates you. However, I've always found it ironic when people hate people who preach hate.

 

[marcofthebeast]

We do not have the right to not be offended.

 

[The Senator]

We do not have the right to not be offended.

If people have the right to say n***** or ***got, then people certainly have a right to be offended.

 

[marcofthebeast]

We certainly have a right to be offended. But we have no right ordainded by the government to not be offended. Meaning if you hear something that you don't like you have to deal with it on your own. The police should not step in unless violence occurs.

 

[The Senator]

The difference between you an me is that I'm a hard core advocate of free speech. Even if my words are seen as hateful, I could care less because it's my right to say it. But you saying hateful things about someone, even if it is "true", then on the other hand say that if you say hateful things you trample your first amendment rights, that just seems hypocritical.

There's a difference between stating facts... such as many Palestinian terrorists have sent rockets into residential neighborhoods, killing innocent Israelis in the process... and stating untrue, bigoted nonsense... such as homosexuals conspire to turn kids gay, or African Americans are lazy welfare ****es...

Sorry, I completely disagree. You have EVERY right to say ****** or ***got. And I know people who use the n-word and they are not "hateful, disgusting beings with a violent conscience", they're just rednecks.

Wait a minute... being a 'redneck' excuses someone from acting respectfully? You mean to say Jim Bob Hicksman from Mobile, Alabama has every right to call an African American a ******, just because he's from the South and at one point that was the social norm?

That's ridiculous.

This feeds into the ignorance which exists in this country. How are we as a society suppose to transcend the levels of intolerance which still exist here, especially when people use a disgusting word rooted in hate to describe an entire race of people? It's verbal segregation. In my opinion, there is no difference between Jim Bob Hicksman casually referring to an African American friend as the n-word, and a Klansman invoking that word at a hate rally. These words are deigned to invoke hate. They don't invoke unity. They don't invoke good thoughts. They allow people to walk around spewing ignorance and uneducated statements, further dismantling race relations in this country.

Yes, you have the right to stand up for you, but you can't be justified walking into an anti-gay meeting with a baseball bat and start breaking kneecaps.

So... does this mean that the KKK meetings in the early half of the 20th century were completely acceptable?

I mean, there's a difference between having a townhall meeting on gay marriage and organizing the murder of a kid because he dresses in drag. In the latter example, it's perfectly acceptable to start breaking kneecaps. In my opinion, of course.

And know one is saying that you can't use violence to protect yourself from violence, you just can't use violence to silence someone who hates you. However, I've always found it ironic when people hate people who preach hate.

Well, I don't plan on being a sitting duck my entire life, waiting for some of the ignorance which exists in this country to magically disappear. My goal is to actively campaign for legislation which silences some of these folks for good. I've never engaged violently with anyone, but if I was put in a situation where I felt the only way out was through violence, then so be it.

But I can't believe you don't think the world would be a better place without some of these beliefs.

 

[SuBe]

We certainly have a right to be offended. But we have no right ordainded by the government to not be offended. Meaning if you hear something that you don't like you have to deal with it on your own. The police should not step in unless violence occurs.

agreed

 

[SuBe]

I mean, there's a difference between having a townhall meeting on gay marriage and organizing the murder of a kid because he dresses in drag. In the latter example, it's perfectly acceptable to start breaking kneecaps. In my opinion, of course.



Well, I don't plan on being a sitting duck my entire life, waiting for some of the ignorance which exists in this country to magically disappear. My goal is to actively campaign for legislation which silences some of these folks for good. I've never engaged violently with anyone, but if I was put in a situation where I felt the only way out was through violence, then so be it.

But I can't believe you don't think the world would be a better place without some of these beliefs.

So, you are advocating Violence to someone that has a belief system different from you. No matter how insane and offensive it may be, you do not have a right to vigilante justice if someone says a word that offends you. You Do Not have a right to harm some one physically because you heard a word you don't like. Are you saying that you believe that someone has a right to "break knee-caps" of Pastor Wright because of the Rascist Hate-mongering words he used toward white people?

That is just not right, and I'm very disappointed in you Jman.

 

[The Senator]

So, you are advocating Violence to someone that has a belief system different from you. No matter how insane and offensive it may be, you do not have a right to vigilante justice if someone says a word that offends you. You Do Not have a right to harm some one physically because you heard a word you don't like. Are you saying that you believe that someone has a right to "break knee-caps" of Pastor Wright because of the Rascist Hate-mongering words he used toward white people?

That is just not right, and I'm very disappointed in you Jman.

You're quoting my post where I say that there's a difference between having a meeting and discussing gay marriage (or even preaching adamantly against it...which I did not include)... and a meeting where folks plot or support the murder of another human being because that person dresses in drag...

If these meetings are used to invoke violence, then I believe violent action may be necessary as a counteraction. Preferably through police action, but if the police weren't doing anything about it, then yes, I would support "breaking knee caps" over such a meeting.

It makes me rather uncomfortable to think that there are people who would not support the interruption of an organized meeting which promotes violence fueled by hatred.

At what point do you draw the line between a difference in opinion and disrupting the peace?

I mean, in that respect, shouldn't terrorists be able to assemble? So what if they're planning to bomb an airplane or two? They haven't done the act, they might as well be allowed to say and do what they want until someone is harmed.

See, to me, it isn't so much over hearing the word "***got" uttered. But if someone does so in a hateful, repetitive manner as a form of harassment, or if someone was plotting the murder of a homosexual, and nothing was being done by the proper authorities... then yes, I would personally punch that person in the jaw. And I hope any other person would if they were in my situation.

 

[StorminNorman]

If people have the right to say n***** or ***got, then people certainly have a right to be offended.

You have the right to be offended. You have the right to retaliate with in the law. You have the ability to use those hateful, ignorant quotes against the other person - but they still have the right to use that same, horrible language.

 

[bell110]

Wait a minute... being a 'redneck' excuses someone from acting respectfully? You mean to say Jim Bob Hicksman from Mobile, Alabama has every right to call an African American a ******, just because he's from the South and at one point that was the social norm?

No, he has every right because he's an American, and no matter how stupid or bigoted his comments are, he is protected under the constitution.

That's ridiculous.

This feeds into the ignorance which exists in this country. How are we as a society suppose to transcend the levels of intolerance which still exist here, especially when people use a disgusting word rooted in hate to describe an entire race of people? It's verbal segregation. In my opinion, there is no difference between Jim Bob Hicksman casually referring to an African American friend as the n-word, and a Klansman invoking that word at a hate rally. These words are deigned to invoke hate. They don't invoke unity. They don't invoke good thoughts. They allow people to walk around spewing ignorance and uneducated statements, further dismantling race relations in this country.

You say "further dismantling race relations" like before we were all holding hands and singing kuum-ba-ya (sp?). Race relations aren't prefect, but it's the best it has been in the country's history. In the 50's, the KKK were a force to be reckoned with, now they are pretty much a joke. A few rednecks aren't going to put us back a few decades.

So... does this mean that the KKK meetings in the early half of the 20th century were completely acceptable?

I mean, there's a difference between having a townhall meeting on gay marriage and organizing the murder of a kid because he dresses in drag. In the latter example, it's perfectly acceptable to start breaking kneecaps. In my opinion, of course.

If you knew of a plot to kill someone, call the police. Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime. You are taking this to extremes to justify your opinion. If a group of people got together and were just talking about how wrong it was to be gay, like in some churches, the are entitled to that. I'm not talking about murder plots here.

Well, I don't plan on being a sitting duck my entire life, waiting for some of the ignorance which exists in this country to magically disappear. My goal is to actively campaign for legislation which silences some of these folks for good. I've never engaged violently with anyone, but if I was put in a situation where I felt the only way out was through violence, then so be it.

But I can't believe you don't think the world would be a better place without some of these beliefs.

Yes, if you felt that way, violence is acceptable. No one is disputing self defence. I'm talking about straight forward words. If someone was walking down the street, and he just yelled out "***got", he is protected under the constitution. I don't like the idea of a "thought police".

And where do you get the idea that I think these bigoted beliefs are good? Of course the world would be better without those beliefs, but we can't force people to be nice to each other.

 

[The Senator]

No, he has every right because he's an American, and no matter how stupid or bigoted his comments are, he is protected under the constitution.

He has a right to say those things, but it doesn't make it right.

You say "further dismantling race relations" like before we were all holding hands and singing kuum-ba-ya (sp?). Race relations aren't prefect, but it's the best it has been in the country's history. In the 50's, the KKK were a force to be reckoned with, now they are pretty much a joke. A few rednecks aren't going to put us back a few decades.

Race relations never were perfect, and I didn't say they were. But these words do not help race relations in this country, which is what I was getting at.

If you knew of a plot to kill someone, call the police. Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime. You are taking this to extremes to justify your opinion. If a group of people got together and were just talking about how wrong it was to be gay, like in some churches, the are entitled to that. I'm not talking about murder plots here.

You do realize there are towns, cities, police departments, etc. in this country which are still rooted in racism and other forms of bigotry, correct?

Such as Jena, Louisiana, where six African Americans were charged with attempted murder for assaulting a group of white kids, even though those white kids hung nooses in trees because they didn't want their African American comrades to hang out where the white folks hung out?

There have been reported incidents across the country where complaints from homosexuals and transgendered/ gender queer individuals have gone unanswered by the authorities. Just because you pick up a phone and call the cops, that doesn't mean they are going to help you. Bigotry exists at all levels, and as a result, there are times when citizens themselves either have to play the victim (and to what extent should they do so? until they are murdered?) or take matters into their own hands to defend themselves.

Yes, if you felt that way, violence is acceptable. No one is disputing self defence. I'm talking about straight forward words. If someone was walking down the street, and he just yelled out "***got", he is protected under the constitution. I don't like the idea of a "thought police".

I've encountered situations like that myself. I don't advocate pummeling someone simply because they say "***got." Only in the most extreme circumstances do I feel this action is necessary.

 

[Venom'sDad]

Thats if you believe that we have a government for the people, of the people and by the people.

The fact of the matter is that there is indeed a dictatorship in this country. Not by one person, but by a small number of rich men that have controlled this country for at least the past hundred years. The last REAL President we had in this country was John F. Kennedy, and he paid the price for that. Every President since then has been a puppet, having very little power but what these people give him. The Federal Reserve, the mass media, 9/11, The Patriot Act, etc. and etc. are not the works of our government, but the works of the wealthy elite that pull all the strings behind the scenes.

DVig, I know we obviously disagree, but my opinion is that Ronald Reagan was the last true president. That's not say that those between Kennedy and Reagan, was true Presidents... because in my opinion they were puppets... Johnson, Nixon, Ford(unelected), and Carter.

However, I may be a bit bias because I do believe that Ike, John, and Ronald was the best Prez of the 20th Century.

Now on another heated topic concerning free speech...huh... look the Constitution states exactly what the defintion consist of. One of the slew of reasons now days, why it is so easy to erode the Constitution... is because citizens many interpretation of what is clearly stated. Everyone has their own opinion of what a number of areas in the Constitution means, that the public entice mischievous people of power, to try mischievous acts against the U.S. Constitution, the country soveriegnty, and god given rights.

The collaspe of Babylon, the fall of Rome... many never learn from the events of the past.

 

[Handsome Rob]

No one has a right to say hateful, disgusting things about someone, such as "those n*****s are stupid" or "those ***gots want to rape and convert your children!" They deserve to be silenced by whatever means necessary. Their beliefs do not benefit the overall well-being of our society.


The people who refer to some of us as "***gots" or African-Americans as the n-word are hateful, disgusting beings with a violent conscience. Some of us have to stand up for ourselves. Violence, in this sense, is warranted-- even more so if our opponents use violence themselves, as in the case of Matthew Shepard and Lawrence King, who did not deserve to be treated they way they were under ANY circumstances.

I'm editing this joker out, because my post is no longer valid (see below).

 

[Handsome Rob]

I've encountered situations like that myself. I don't advocate pummeling someone simply because they say "***got." Only in the most extreme circumstances do I feel this action is necessary.

OK, that makes me feel better, although I'm a little creeped out that we both used the words "pummel" in our posts.

 

[Obi-Ron]

We do not have the right to not be offended.

Amen.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I hope you were joking. Nobody has the right to assault another person. I know people like that, who honestly believe that if you insult them, they have the right to beat you up. BUT, they are wussies (censored myself), and will bring two or three of thier buddies to jump you.

Of course it was a joke. I don't believe that people have the right to assault one another. The point was that if you say something offensive or downright stupid just don't be surprised if someone wants to kick your ass, retaliate in some form, or get your ass in jail.

 

[SuBe]

Found this great site:

Things NOT in the Constitution:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html