04-02-2023, 03:38 AM
But an interpretation, nonetheless. I don't recall who said: "The successful anarchist uses the words of the system . . . against the system."
Maybe it was me . . . or The Vandals. Sounds like something I would say . . . or at least have printed on a T-Shirt for Antifa or BLM. You get my point.
The supposed forum for the ultimate "rigorous efforts to interpret (the law) objectively", allegedly is within the Courts.
Alas, now they are being disseminated only as emotional "feelings as facts" and being spoon-fed by illiterate talking-heads masquerading as "journalists" and media "experts" pitching their opinions as "facts" or (refutable) political dogma . . . without discussion and prohibiting dissent or differing opinions.
I clearly stated it was an absurd argument that I didn't personally support. However, it is a position subject to your rigorous and objective interpretation.
To pretend otherwise is arrogant and foolish . . . and it is neither emotional nor untrue.
Now . . . show me where in the Constitution it states that the founding fathers prohibited citizens from owning the same firearms as used by the military.
Or when Indigenous people were granted citizenship and the right to vote?
(BTW - Blacks got citizenship before women got the right to vote. Yeah . . . I love me some of that white women privilege . . . always at the expense of other races!)
Maybe it was me . . . or The Vandals. Sounds like something I would say . . . or at least have printed on a T-Shirt for Antifa or BLM. You get my point.
The supposed forum for the ultimate "rigorous efforts to interpret (the law) objectively", allegedly is within the Courts.
Alas, now they are being disseminated only as emotional "feelings as facts" and being spoon-fed by illiterate talking-heads masquerading as "journalists" and media "experts" pitching their opinions as "facts" or (refutable) political dogma . . . without discussion and prohibiting dissent or differing opinions.
I clearly stated it was an absurd argument that I didn't personally support. However, it is a position subject to your rigorous and objective interpretation.
To pretend otherwise is arrogant and foolish . . . and it is neither emotional nor untrue.
Now . . . show me where in the Constitution it states that the founding fathers prohibited citizens from owning the same firearms as used by the military.
Or when Indigenous people were granted citizenship and the right to vote?
(BTW - Blacks got citizenship before women got the right to vote. Yeah . . . I love me some of that white women privilege . . . always at the expense of other races!)