Or maybe is was in drivers ed.

I call “bullshit” and then point out the hypocrisy of the statement.

Oh so quick to condemn someone for beliefs that they don’t even hold (your original statement was that he (meaning me) follows only the parts of the constitution that he WANTS to follow.) Since you haven’t come back with any examples of how I did that, I’ll assume you were talking out your ass.

And: you expect people to just take what you say at face value…rather than to question your assumptions.

You didn’t question my assumptions. You attacked me with the single most predictable neocon retard response to any mention of the Constitution: the 2nd Amendment. Someone half as intelligent as you think you are would have provided evidence to disprove my claim. Perhaps you could show me where someone on the right has defended the Constitution in the face of Right Wing power.

But no. You and your “conservative” brethren genuflect to your lord and master, King George, rather than stand up for the First Amendment.

Typical.

What hypocrisy? Gun control is not unconstitutional. Not even close. Neither is it evidence of “picking and choosing” which part of the Constitution one feels obliged to follow.

I’ll also note that previously you wrote:

Having the right to own a weapon is substantially different from a seperate statement about the usefulness of a militia. It really isn’t all that complicated BD…

But in your most recent post you wrote:

I cannot for the life of me remember how to diagram a sentence. However, you point is certainly arguable. I would also point out though, that applying modern rules of grammar and common speach to something written over 200 years ago is likely fraught with errors…

You’re an idiot.

So when nihilistic (get a shorter f’ing screen name will ya!) says

The problem that lefties have is that we value the Constitution over neocon wet-dream power-mongering. Shame on us.

I am expected to take that on faith. But see, since I know that lefties as a whole are lying hypocritical pieces of feculent debris, I call “bullshit” and then point out the hypocrisy of the statement. Yet I have somehow changed the subject…fascinating.

And wilbur…ya got me. I cannot for the life of me remember how to diagram a sentence. However, you point is certainly arguable. I would also point out though, that applying modern rules of grammar and common speach to something written over 200 years ago is likely fraught with errors…

Don’t even tell me that it’s just a tactic of the left. Idiot.

Having the right to own a weapon is substantially different from a seperate statement about the usefulness of a militia.

Completely wrong, as usual, Pedro.

Let’s look at those amendments, shall we?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice how all those items after the first are introduced by the word “or”? “or” is what we call a “coordinating conjunction”. Sentence elements linked by “or” are of equal value to one another. That means that all are equally valid completions of the sentence that begins “Congress shall make no law…”

Amendment II
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 sentence is composed of two elements, but they are not equal. Notice how the second part, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed coud stand alone as a separate sentence?

Can’t say the same for the first part: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State. This is what we call a “participial phrase”, and is a species of “subordination”. It is not a separate thought from the main part of the sentence but instead describes the “attendant circumstance” of the main clause, i.e. the conditions under which the main clause (the part about keeping and bearing arms not being infringed) has validity.

Of course if you’d worked hard and paid attention in school you’d know that, and you woldn’t have gotten stuck in Iraq denial.

The first amendment has about 7 different idea, including freedom of the press, freedom of religion and the right to obtain redress from the government.

Having the right to own a weapon is substantially different from a seperate statement about the usefulness of a militia.

It really isn’t all that complicated BD…

two separate ideas BD, two ideas.

Why on Earth would somebody put two different ideas into the same sentence? How sloppy do you think our Founding Fathers’ writing skills were?

You think they got together and said “Let’s make sure that the Constitution allows for a well regulated militia. Oh, and while we’re in that amendment, let’s say that any idiot can keep and bear arms as well.”

Why bother with the first part, if the second part is, as you say, all-inclusive?

Let’s see, under Clinton, Iran was moving towards democracy and was not seriously pursuing nuclear weapons.

Under Bush, since his axis of evil speech and Iraq invasion, Iran has moved away from democracy and raced to get nuclear weapons.

Under Clinton, N Korea’s programs were monitored by the UN and US, N Korea was moving closer to S Korea and diplomacy was bearing fruit.

Under Bush, after his Axis of Evil speech and Bush walking away from the diplomatic tables, North Korea has moved away from S. Korea. N Korea has kicked out the inspectors and has raced to get nuclear weapons.

Which is, of course, total bullshit and still utterly irrelevant to the point at hand.

You see pedro, loyalty to the president is not the same as loyalty to the Constitution and loyalty to the COnstitution is not the same as intepreting Constitutional law.

The Constitution protects free speech but the courts have ruled that the government has an right and responsibility to restrict some speech that might be dangerous, yelling fire in a crowded theater, for instance. Does that mean that the courts are “choosing which parts to support and which not”? Does that mean the courts are “disloyal to the constitution”? No, of course, not. Same with gun control. There is a right to bear arms in the Constitution but the full extent of that right and its application is a question of intepretation which has nothing to do with being “disloyal” or selectively “following” some parts of the Constitution over others.

But I’ve already said too much. Your totally irrelevant questions have shifted the conversation from the original topic.

As Americans we are responsible for being loyal to the Constitution and its principles. Not the president.

I’m sure you would agree with that. Right?

Give me a moment to recover from your stinging retort.

he follows only the parts of the constitution that he WANTS to follow, a typical lefty hypocrite.

When have I ever said anything that could be construed as not supporting Americans’ right to own guns? Point it out, if you can, because if I did, I must have been smoking crack. I am totally in favor of gun ownership. That’s right, I’m the Right Wing’s worst nightmare, a liberal who loves guns. So before you go calling me a hypocrite, get your facts straight.

So perhaps you’d like to respond to my original point, which was that ass-wipes such as yourself value loyalty to Bush over our Constitutionally protected liberties.

Paul (Frameone), Nihilistic was trying to wrap himself in the constitution, I am pointing out that he follows only the parts of the constitution that he WANTS to follow, a typical lefty hypocrite.

BD:

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.

two separate ideas BD, two ideas.