nounionfool
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
"Obvious attempt to ridicule"???... Seriously?..... If I was going to "ridicule" it would have been a lot sharper and pointed than my comment....... Your post was conflicting with itself..... You stated that you believe in only "strict reading and application" of the Constitution.... then made this statement to the poster, " Your interpretation of the First and Second Amendment, it is just that, your interpretation...." and then acknowledged that you, and everyone else, has an "Interpretation" .. I asked with "all due respect", how "strict reading and application could be possible if everyone, including you, made their own interpretations....If you think that is "ridicule" you have some pretty thin skin..... What's with all the "sensitivity" lately anyway???
Ok...So your "point" was that most people try "forcing" others to accept their interpretation as the only "truth".... Why is it so common that posters that disagree with anothers point, always have to make the Claim that they're "forcing" their views..or, in your case, interpretations, on someone else???.... I read what the Poster wrote and in no way was he "forcing" his view on you....He expressed his opinion.....
I haven't read that many of your posts to really know if you try and refrain from "forcing" your "interpretation".....but you did just "wave off" his view of the 1st and 2nd amendments as totally invalid.....which would seem to indicate to me that you were NOT "forced" to somehow accept his view and opinion as truth....and that you felt that your interpretation, whatever that is, as you didn't elaborate) was more valid than his.....
No.....
A person walks into a Bank with a gun(and presumably a mask) and demands cash..... There is nothing to "interpret" ..The "intent" to commit Robbery would be overwhelmingly obvious....
Who said otherwise??? Yes the Court makes the final determination if a law was broken and what that punishment should be etc...In your analogy of the Robbery, there would no doubt, be video evidence and there would be nothing that would need to be "Interpreted" .....Maybe you need a new analogy........
You apparently think they do.... your statement: "So you see, its the court's job to uphold the Laws of the Land by the interpretations that were held for the 200 plus years thus far" The Constitution has not just recently been differently interpreted...it has changed as the years passed...and so have the situations that arisen in the intervening years and up to our day.. Yes the Courts of today..even the Supreme Court make determinations of how to apply the Constitution, as best they can, to apply to the situations of today that could not have ever been predicted or even imagined by the authors of the Constitution.... The authors of the Constitution didn't think women should have the right to vote...... If you could only apply "strict" word for word reading of the constitution without being able to "interpret" the intent and the spirit of which it was written to reflect changing conditions...then we would not have an Air-force today... ..
So in answer to your question...Not only is it their "Right"....it is their "Responsibility" to interpret it and apply it, as best they can, to reflect todays changed world....
Where and how, can you so wrongly accuse me of "Opposing what the Constitution truly" says....by anything in my post to you???
The "armed robber" was a figment of your imagination for "illustrative purposes only" and I certainly didn't make any "Interpretation" of the Constitution in my comments.... and then you say I "ridiculed" you???...
Just like you "interpreted" my comments as me "ridiculing you"...... that was not my intent nor "real meaning"....but you choose to 'interpret" it that way....
I only responded to your comments that you wrote....I did not "interpret" them to mean anything other than what you wrote....I expressed my views and Opinions of your comments..... and I hope that I demonstrated the "courtesy" you requested, and are entitled to, by answering your questions...
All is Forgiven...... I said you brought out some great points because I was being honest....just because you think I ridiculed you doesn't take away from your other points I agreed with.... If you wish to harbor hurt feelings and try and "hurt my feelings" by your above comment.....That is your prerogative.........................
If you took my comments as "Ridicule".... I apologize....That wasn't my intent....nor was any comment in this post meant to "ridicule"....Just my opinions and responses to your post......
Enjoy your Evening....
All is forgiven...about what? Just what is it about trollls and accusations of hurt feelings anyway? Only those with low self esteem who strive for that sense of accomplishment boast aboat having the ability to hurt someones feelings. Let me be clear on this since you have a hard time accepting, not understanding true interpretations. I have to actually care about someone before they can hurt my feelings and as of this moment that is not the case so you can save that course of action for your next debate. I believe you put way to much faith in your abilities.Next, you are the one that "interpreted" my comment was stating that you were "ridiculing me". What I said was, "it wan an attempt to ridicule the point that I was trying to get across" with the emphasis being on "attempt" and "point". And another question, why are you so concerned about me wanting to hurt your feelings now? You dont have to keep fretting over that because I am not one that has to go out and hurt feelings in order to feel like I accomplished something.
Now that we got that out of the way, lets proceed shall we? Why wont you accept the fact what the courts have ruled as the true interpretations for 200 years? Why cant you accept the fact that the courts today should continue to enforce the strict reading and application of the Constitution the way it has been interpreted for the first 200 years? As for you stating that " my interpretation of the First and Second Amendment, it is just that, my interpretIation". Im sorry to inform you that you are dead wrong on that account, that was the courts interpretations for the first 200 years anyway, I like most just happen to agree with them. Tell me, are you one of those who think the Constitution is outdated? The way you rambled on about changing the Constitution so that it would apply to the situations of today made me think that you do. Do you know why the first Ten Amendments are called the Bill of Rights? Do you actually know how many rights we have lost in the last twenty years alone? Why are you so insistent that our God given inalienable rights are now open to interpretation? Or are you now going to argue that the authors of the Constitution couldnt have predicted or even imagined that we wouldnt still have the need to have our rights protected today? Sounds silly, doesnt it? But then again, so do you when you ramble on about my statement about the the strict reading and application of the Constitution. Do you realize, or even care that our children today are being taught that the government gives us our rights? Why do you suppose that is? Well lets see, logic tells us that if the goverment gives you your rights then they can also take them away.
About my analogy of the robbery, just what in the world were you thinking when you stated that here would be nothing that would need to be "Interpreted" because there would be video evidence? Video evidence, are you serious, just how would video evidence show the inner thoughts of a man that robbed the bank? The robber was stating how he interpreted his actions not how others did but then again, you knew that, but as usual just refused to accept it One would think that you could of come up with something better than video evidence in an attempt to make my analogy sound silly. And before you go off and say my feelings are hurt again by trying to accuse me of saying you called me silly, let me be absolutely clear this time, Im saying that you attempted to call my analagy silly, not me.
And finally, your statement "A person walks into a Bank with a gun(and presumably a mask) and demands cash..... There is nothing to "interpret" ..The "intent" to commit Robbery would be overwhelmingly obvious". I see that you werent completely oblivious to the point that I was trying to make in my analogy. But guess what, the government starts restricting the peoples speech and gun ownership, there is also nothing to "interpret" in "Freedom of Speech" and the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" either. The "intent" to strip the people of their God given rights would be overwhelmingly obvious too. But you fail to either recognize or accept this, why?