• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Crazy Liberals in Maryland ban Santa Claus

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<<

<< Militia
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service >>


Above is the current definition of militia from Websters Collegiate Dictionary. Based upon the common usage of the term militia in the 18th century as well as the writings of the Founders the 2nd ammendment usage of the term militia is generally believed to be based on definition 2. In that case the right to bear arms is an individual right that existed prior to the Constitution and is in not to be infringed by the Federal Government. >>



You make 2 interesting points. HOWEVER, the second is irrelevant due to the nature in which revolutionary militias were spawned. In revolutionary times, our fledgling government hadn't the money to adequately arm all of it fighting forces. As such, the militia used the weapons that they used for hunting and other purposes. Now, the federal government will supply the forces with arms and munitions. I beg someone please (especially one of you gun nuts) to go to boot camp and bring your gun with you and insist on using it. See what happens.
 


<<

<<

<< Who is the people referring to? If the only people that have the right to bear arms are military personnel, then is it only military personnel that have a right to complain about the government? >>


And here you go if you would like me to pinpoint the fault in your logic. Your argument is moot on the ground that it is not a RIGHT of military personnel to bear arms. This is a directive as ordered. This separates them from the civilian population and hence the "people" which you like to refer to. Your classification of "right" is your fault. Argument = 0 >>



You're right. You have no argument. >>



Good counter, way to prove your point jackass. Want to stick your tongue out and say neener neener too?
 
DuffmanOhYeah

This is the second thread that you either started as a debate on Gun Control or turned the thread into one.

You ran with your tail between your scrawny legs from the last one. Instead of borng us with your nonsensical tidbits of loonacy, go back and address the other thread you started. Possibly your attention span was challenged?

This one is about Government out of control.....Liberals almost always do that ......not Gun Control.
 
Although the smoking and gun-toting arguments may be interesting to some, most posters here, as well as Texmaster, have totally missed the point. It is not liberals who want to ban Santa. Now there may be members of this board who have a strong tendency to label others as the evil liberals or right wind wackos (depending on the poster's personal bias), the well known facts are as follows:

-Santa delivers gifts to all children the world round, free of charge, provided the child meets the rather nebulous standard of being "good,"

-Santa exercises his own paternalistic judgment in deciding what gifts to give which children, and

- Santa wears a red suit, which is the official color of communism.

This Santa Claus fellow is obviously a communist. Ergo, if a political philosophy of the objectors is at all relevant, they are obviously true right-thinking American citizens trying to save this country and our children from communistic thought.

Of course, some doubting Thomas' may claim that the objections to Santa were based upon religious beliefs or perceptions, but those people are obviously misguided.

This whole thread is rather silly, isn't it?
 


<<

<<

<<

<< Who is the people referring to? If the only people that have the right to bear arms are military personnel, then is it only military personnel that have a right to complain about the government? >>


And here you go if you would like me to pinpoint the fault in your logic. Your argument is moot on the ground that it is not a RIGHT of military personnel to bear arms. This is a directive as ordered. This separates them from the civilian population and hence the "people" which you like to refer to. Your classification of "right" is your fault. Argument = 0 >>



You're right. You have no argument. >>



Good counter, way to prove your point jackass. Want to stick your tongue out and say neener neener too? >>



With all the immature name calling and geographical insults you've posted in this thread alone, you have no place to talk.
 
First of all, I stopped replying to the other thread as it was full of retards saying they liked their guns cause they were pretty. I asked for people to address my question within a set of guidelines and that was not met. This picked up nicely here. I have actually received intelligent replies from Amused and Bober. As such, I will continue with these arguments as I see fit. And scrawney legs? Riiiiight.... Um, go back and read some of my training posts. And if you are still not convinced about me not being scrawney, ask hzl eyed girl. She can bear witness.
 
DuffmanOhYeah,

The cr*p you posted here are hurting my eyes. I vote to ban you from posting such posts in the future. 😉


BTW, if you see how stupid the above statement is, it is on the same level of stupidity as ban smoking in private property.
 


<< TexMaster

You forgot one arguement (which I will start)

Texas vs. 49 states (Rest of US)

static911 >>



Yes I keep forgetting that 😀

But shoot it doesn't stop there, hell Europe polls said they hated Bush more because he was from Texas! lol

Ah jeasously 😀
 


<< BTW, if you see how stupid the above statement is, it is on the same level of stupidity as ban smoking in private property >>


OH HOLY HELL!!!! Nobody tried to ban smoking on private property!!! It was simply to be regulated....well within the scope of power of the local government.
 


<< First of all, I stopped replying to the other thread as it was full of retards saying they liked their guns cause they were pretty. I asked for people to address my question within a set of guidelines and that was not met. This picked up nicely here. I have actually received intelligent replies from Amused and Bober. As such, I will continue with these arguments as I see fit. And scrawney legs? Riiiiight.... Um, go back and read some of my training posts. And if you are still not convinced about me not being scrawney, ask hzl eyed girl. She can bear witness. >>



Duff, there are some EXTREMELY well thought out replies in the other thread that completely shatter your illformed misconceptions of the 2nd Amendment. That you refuse to address them is simply a dodge.

I will not continue the 2nd Amendment debate here, as I'd just be repeating exactly what I said to shred your argument in the old thread.

I've revived the old thread. If it pleases you, simply skip over all the other posts but mine.
 


<< The Montgomery County community of Kensington has banned the jolly old man from its annual tree lighting ceremony this Sunday. "Because two families in our town felt that they would be uncomfortable with Santa Claus being a part of our event," Mayor Lynn Raufaste said. >>


So, to return to track...

When was there a law passed that require these two families to attend the event? IMHO, Santa does not represent a serious aspect of any religion and therefore should not be covered by seperation.

It would be different if it was a town sponsored menorrah (sp?) lighting or communion.
 
Amused. I have carefully looked over what you have said. You have presented no evidence that outweighs the arguments that I have set forth. How should I then respond? With a restatement of what I have said in this thread??? Effectively counter what I have presented, and I will debate you. Otherwise, do not waste my time.
 
Duffman

What exactly are your credentials? Left wingers have been bitching about guns for a long time, yet they seem unable to produce any argument that can convince any court that gun ownership isn't a right. What have you got exactly? High school diploma? GED? Diploma from Podunk Community College?

Everyone who disagrees with you on consitutional law is apparently a "moron" in your eyes. You damn well better have a JD from some prestigious school. And if you do, then why aren't you arguing your "airtight logic" in front of a court somewhere trying to repeal the 2nd amendment?

My guess is that you're a nothing.
 


<< Amused. I have carefully looked over what you have said. You have presented no evidence that outweighs the arguments that I have set forth. How should I then respond? With a restatement of what I have said in this thread??? Effectively counter what I have presented, and I will debate you. Otherwise, do not waste my time. >>



I have countered what you presented, with the very intentions of our founding fathers. In their own words, no less. The very men who wrote the Second Amendment plainly state that it refers to the private ownership of arms. You've countered nothing.

In fact, go to the gun thread, copy and paste my argument, and make a clear and convincing argument, point by point, as to just how it doesn't address your mistaken, and revisionist, interpretation of the Amendment.

You're dodging the debate, Duffman, and everyone can see it. Stop trying to low smoke up everyone's ass. They aren'y buying it.
 


<<

<< <STRONG>The Montgomery County community of Kensington has banned the jolly old man from its annual tree lighting ceremony this Sunday. "Because two families in our town felt that they would be uncomfortable with Santa Claus being a part of our event," Mayor Lynn Raufaste said. >>

</STRONG>
So, to return to track...

When was there a law passed that require these two families to attend the event? IMHO, Santa does not represent a serious aspect of any religion and therefore should not be covered by seperation.

It would be different if it was a town sponsored menorrah (sp?) lighting or communion. >>


No, no law would mandate their attendance. I imagine that the city decided that it would suffer a financial burden if this were to be taken to court and that is why they dropped it. I think the issue that may have been brought up here was undue entanglement between state and religion with santa being present in the parade. However, as I said before, I believe Lynch v. Donnely relegated nearly ALL Christmas decorations (including a creche) as now secular. So should it have gone, I don't think the local gvt would have lost, probably just didn't want to spent the time or money.
 
OH HOLY HELL!!!! Nobody tried to ban smoking on private property!!! It was simply to be regulated....well within the scope of power of the local government.

hahaha... that is like someone saying your sh*t stinks and need to be regulated everytime you needed to take a dump... in your own home... What a jokes!
 


<< Duffman

What exactly are your credentials? Left wingers have been bitching about guns for a long time, yet they seem unable to produce any argument that can convince any court that gun ownership isn't a right. What have you got exactly? High school diploma? GED? Diploma from Podunk Community College?

Everyone who disagrees with you on consitutional law is apparently a "moron" in your eyes. You damn well better have a JD from some prestigious school. And if you do, then why aren't you arguing your "airtight logic" in front of a court somewhere trying to repeal the 2nd amendment?

My guess is that you're a nothing. >>



Well, I already have acceptances from Georgetown, GW and William and Mary. I am waiting on Columbia and Stanford, and although I doubt I will get in, I think this puts me in a league ahead of you.
 


<<

<< Amused. I have carefully looked over what you have said. You have presented no evidence that outweighs the arguments that I have set forth. How should I then respond? With a restatement of what I have said in this thread??? Effectively counter what I have presented, and I will debate you. Otherwise, do not waste my time. >>



I have countered what you presented, with the very intentions of our founding fathers. In their own words, no less. The very men who wrote the Second Amendment plainly state that it refers to the private ownership of arms. You've countered nothing.

In fact, go to the gun thread, copy and paste my argument, and make a clear and convincing argument, point by point, as to just how it doesn't address your mistaken, and revisionist, interpretation of the Amendment.

You're dodging the debate, Duffman, and everyone can see it. Stop trying to low smoke up everyone's ass. They aren'y buying it. >>



I care not whether or not you or anyone else buys it. You presented statements by the founding fathers on their perceptions of gun ownership. Yes, this is true. They are now contextually obsolete. Do we still live under tyrrany? No. Are we a fledgling country with minimal defenses? No. Your quatations mean nothing. Shall we look back at what Bill Gates said about the future of computers? No. Times have changed. Situations are different. The constitution as a body of work transcends the founding fathers as people.

Like I said, present an argument to what I have said that carries some weight, and I will respond. Otherwise do not waste my time with your childish banter.
 


<< Well, I already have acceptances from Georgetown, GW and William and Mary. I am waiting on Columbia and Stanford, and although I doubt I will get in, I think this puts me in a league ahead of you. >>

You've been accepted by colleges? You don't even have a single credit? Come back in a few years, junior.
 


<<

<< Well, I already have acceptances from Georgetown, GW and William and Mary. I am waiting on Columbia and Stanford, and although I doubt I will get in, I think this puts me in a league ahead of you. >>

You've been accepted by colleges? You don't even have a single credit? Come back in a few years, junior. >>



I am currently a gvpt major with a focus in law. I have 42 law credits under my belt. Law school shall just be a continuation. Pray tell, what are your qualifications?
 


<< I care not whether or not you or anyone else buys it. You presented statements by the founding fathers on their perceptions of gun ownership. Yes, this is true. They are now contextually obsolete. Do we still live under tyrrany? No. Are we a fledgling country with minimal defenses? No. Your quatations mean nothing. Shall we look back at what Bill Gates said about the future of computers? No. Times have changed. Situations are different. The constitution as a body of work transcends the founding fathers as people. >>


So we get to the crux of the matter. You believe the Constitution is a "body of work" subject to the whims and fancies of anyone that feels that it is outdated or does not mean what it so clearly states. Hopefully those that feel as you do will not get the upper hand or our liberties are doomed.
 


<<

<<

<< Amused. I have carefully looked over what you have said. You have presented no evidence that outweighs the arguments that I have set forth. How should I then respond? With a restatement of what I have said in this thread??? Effectively counter what I have presented, and I will debate you. Otherwise, do not waste my time. >>



I have countered what you presented, with the very intentions of our founding fathers. In their own words, no less. The very men who wrote the Second Amendment plainly state that it refers to the private ownership of arms. You've countered nothing.

In fact, go to the gun thread, copy and paste my argument, and make a clear and convincing argument, point by point, as to just how it doesn't address your mistaken, and revisionist, interpretation of the Amendment.

You're dodging the debate, Duffman, and everyone can see it. Stop trying to low smoke up everyone's ass. They aren'y buying it. >>



I care not whether or not you or anyone else buys it. You presented statements by the founding fathers on their perceptions of gun ownership. Yes, this is true. They are now contextually obsolete. Do we still live under tyrrany? No. Are we a fledgling country with minimal defenses? No. Your quatations mean nothing. Shall we look back at what Bill Gates said about the future of computers? No. Times have changed. Situations are different. The constitution as a body of work transcends the founding fathers as people.

Like I said, present an argument to what I have said that carries some weight, and I will respond. Otherwise do not waste my time with your childish banter. >>



The original intent is the only interpretation of the Second Amendment that it valid. If you want to CHANGE that, pass an amendment nullifying the Second Amendment. Nothing else is valid.

The Constitution is a body of work that can transend the Founding Fathers ONLY by the amendment process, not by revisionism of their original intent, or redefining the words and phrases of the document.

Again, you're dodging. The Second Amendment clearly gives the right to keep and bear arms to the individual. You have not presented a valid argument against this (obviously because you cannot), so now you say we must redefine the meaning of the amendment. Sorry, that doesn't wash. Not only that, but it's unconstitutional.

You're going to have a really bad time in what ever college you go to if this is the best argument you can present.
 
Those crazy morons are obviously ultra right wingers, you don't see any normal people blow up abortion clinics and kill abortion doctors. You don't see any normal people send anthrax to kill his own country men. Those morons!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top