The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
January 6 Committee: Thousands of Interviews, Few New Facts
|
06-15-2022, 06:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-15-2022, 06:29 PM by mikesez. Edited 1 time in total.)
(06-15-2022, 05:43 PM)Ronster Wrote:(06-15-2022, 05:40 PM)mikesez Wrote: I pay attention to what people do, not what they say. And especially not what you say they say. I have two kids. One is easily scared by yelling. But it has no effect on the other. She takes after me. Your all caps means nothing to me. Both the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech are subject to *some* regulation by law. You can't have a select fire gun, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, etc. So you can be for a new, stricter regulation of these and still be in favor of the constitution, as long as you wanted it imposed by a legislature's vote and a governor's signature, and as long as you would abide by judicial review. Both the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech are also subject to the Article V process, that is, subject to elimination by future amendments to the constitution. So you could even be for the abolition of both amendments, and still have claim to being for the constitution, as long as you only wanted to eliminate those rights by the Article V process, and as long as you upheld both rights up until the time that the Constitution was actually amended. You could also claim to be in favor of Presidents being appointed for life, or of the right to select the next President devolving to whichever unarmed mob overtakes the Capitol building first, and still claim to be in favor of the Constitution, as long as you wanted these changes made by an Article V process, and as long as you abided by the existing process for selecting the President, and the existing terms of service and term limits, until that time. However, if you claim to be in favor of the constitution, you cannot be in favor of a mob trying to intimidate Congress into submission, not in 2021 before any such amendment existed. (06-15-2022, 06:12 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote:(06-15-2022, 02:46 PM)mikesez Wrote: Let's assume everything on there is factually accurate. The constitution is more important than money or buildings. I wouldn't say it's more important than lives, but the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been spent defending it do imply otherwise.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
|
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |
The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.