BigBendFishing.Net

Mr. Ducker, I am not a young buck who is brainwashed. I have spent the last 20+ years in my legal career dealing with various issues, including many that include the Constitution.

So, for discussion purposes, if the Amendments to the Constitution are absolute, what about Equal Protection? You have any problem extending Equal Protection to gays, bisexuals, transgender and transsexuals to marry and receive the benefits of being married?

Or how about a mosque being constructed within blocks of the World Trade Centers? Any issue with that under the First Amendment?

And since the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing Equal Protection was passed in 1868, why could women not vote until another Amendment was passed in 1920?

How about the Supreme Court's rulings on what is an unreasonable search and seizure? Kind of changed over the years, right?

And if the Constitution is not a "living document," why do we have an Eighteenth Amendment for prohibition and a Twenty-First Amendment repealing it?

The Twenty-Seventh Amendment prohibits Congressional pay raises from taking effect until the next election. I can't find that in the original non-living Constitution.

I am not ignorant of Constitutional rights and am confident in my studies of history.

Gumbo wrote:Mr. Ducker, I am not a young buck who is brainwashed. I have spent the last 20+ years in my legal career dealing with various issues, including many that include the Constitution.

So, for discussion purposes, if the Amendments to the Constitution are absolute, what about Equal Protection? You have any problem extending Equal Protection to gays, bisexuals, transgender and transsexuals to marry and receive the benefits of being married?

Or how about a mosque being constructed within blocks of the World Trade Centers? Any issue with that under the First Amendment?

And since the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing Equal Protection was passed in 1868, why could women not vote until another Amendment was passed in 1920?

How about the Supreme Court's rulings on what is an unreasonable search and seizure? Kind of changed over the years, right?

And if the Constitution is not a "living document," why do we have an Eighteenth Amendment for prohibition and a Twenty-First Amendment repealing it?

The Twenty-Seventh Amendment prohibits Congressional pay raises from taking effect until the next election. I can't find that in the original non-living Constitution.

I am not ignorant of Constitutional rights and am confident in my studies of history.

I have no problem with equal protection being extended to any US Citizen. However, you jump too far, marriage is not a right, it is a privilege for which a license is issued by the government. And for the record, I don't care if the government issues a civil union certificate to gay partners and granting the same privilege as marriage. Two gays together is not a marriage.

They can build a Mosque where ever they want so long as it falls within the zoning. It is a pretty stupid idea, but stupidity is not UN-Constitutional, in fact, unfortunately, it seems to be in vogue these days. I can also build a barbeque stand and strip joint next door. Neighbors can also protest.

Now you wish to mix ideas. The liberal mantra is that the Constitution, without amendment, is a living document whose meaning changes. The fact that it provides for amendment says it is not, instead, it can only be changed by amendment. That is unchanged from the beginning and thus not proof of the so called "living document".

If you are bringing up the 2nd amendment in relation to sporting and self defense, I stand by my statement that your education is lacking on the Constitution. But alas, I also stand my the 1st Amendment which gives you the right to speak, even if I think you are wrong.

Dubble

Gumbo=rational intelligent gun-owner
Mud,Dubble=ranting 2nd Amendment excuse-users when anyone dares to say the words "gun control"
Dollars to doughnuts Gumbo isn't from S. GA.
By the way I am.

Nevercaughtup wrote:Gumbo=rational intelligent gun-owner
Mud,Dubble=ranting 2nd Amendment excuse-users when anyone dares to say the words "gun control"
Dollars to doughnuts Gumbo isn't from S. GA.
By the way I am.

Posted Aug 14, 2013 by Nevercaughtup:
I'm originally from Va Beach.

http://www.bigbendfishing.net/phpBB3/vi ... 85#p275985

BUSTED!!!!



And what is your point there 6 time poster on here. I am SURE you ain't from around these parts.....

You guys always show up when guns are discussed, but NEVER when fishing is discussed.....

Agenda? , I think maybe so.....


Dubble

Nevercaughtup wrote:Gumbo=rational intelligent gun-owner
Mud,Dubble=ranting 2nd Amendment excuse-users when anyone dares to say the words "gun control"
Dollars to doughnuts Gumbo isn't from S. GA.
By the way I am.

MudDucker = Lawyer for over 30 years, serious student of history and the US Constitution.


Nevercaughtup = Clueless Idjit!

For the record, I do not think Mr. Ducker is an excuse-user. He has researched and reached his own conclusions based on what I will agree is extensive study. And I have no doubt he is a responsible gun owner.

I have been a lawyer for 22 years (you win that one MD), have done considerable study myself and reached a different conclusion.

Debate, agree to disagree, that's one of the many great things about this country.

Now, it's time for a great weekend of football! We can agree on that, right?

Dubble

I thought he asked why he should buy one. Cause it's fun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-89fMRIJVQ4