Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 59

Thread: Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston

  1. -11
    Harry_Bagpipe's Avatar
    Archibald Meatpants

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    5,014
    vCash:
    7156
    Loc:
    Fort lauderdale
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Snakes!Dolphins HomerDolphin
    I heard Moscow circa 1981 was one of the safest places to walk the streets. Completely crime free
    Quote Quote  

  2. -12
    Bumpus's Avatar
    Are you gonna drink that?

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2003
    Posts:
    20,826
    vCash:
    23647
    Loc:
    West-by-god-Virginny
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Trophies
    2013 Dolphins Logo1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by MadDog 88 View Post
    Who wins?? The Whig Party?
    Those who would see a free America destroyed.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadDog 88 View Post
    Written in a time when canon fire was the biggest threat to inflict injuries. Or holding a kite with a key tied to it in a thunderstorm.
    Doesn't make it a damn bit different today.

    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. We also currently live in a time where people have the internet, and are not forced to rely on the printing press to obtain their information. After all, the Right to free speech was written in those days as well. Times change, should we begin restricting the 1st Amendment rights of American citizens now that it's relatively simple for the average person to spew whatever thoughts might be circling around their brains?


    Times change - RIGHTS DON'T
    2014 Goals:
    1) Win the next game.
    2) See goal #1





    "The problem with internet quotes lies in verifying their authenticity."
    -Abraham Lincoln

    Quote Quote  

  3. -13
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,724
    vCash:
    33822
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Two things:

    1. I don't think the 2nd amendment was intended to be interpreted over time the way it has been. What the language says to me is that we need a force to protect this country and since that force is made up of the people then the people need to have guns. People seem to want to interpret it as "the security of a free state" meaning that the ability of the people to rebel against the government. That's silly, imo. Because we protect the security of the state with a regular army, well trained and equipped, the conditions of the amendment no longer apply. Therefore the necessity of people to be armed no longer applies. In other words, it's a conditional amendment. Not because I say so, but because the amendment itself says so in setting up the criteria for it's own relevance. As circumstances have changed, our situation no longer meets the relevant criteria. Therefore, it's null and void.

    2. In any case, I don't really care all that much what the founders' intent was. There's nothing in the Constitution on how it's to be rightly interpreted.


    Quote Quote  

  4. -14
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,724
    vCash:
    33822
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Bumpus View Post
    Times change - RIGHTS DON'T
    Of course they do. All the time. As a teacher you should know better.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -15
    Bumpus's Avatar
    Are you gonna drink that?

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2003
    Posts:
    20,826
    vCash:
    23647
    Loc:
    West-by-god-Virginny
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Trophies
    2013 Dolphins Logo1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Two things:

    1. I don't think the 2nd amendment was intended to be interpreted over time the way it has been. What the language says to me is that we need a force to protect this country and since that force is made up of the people then the people need to have guns. People seem to want to interpret it as "the security of a free state" meaning that the ability of the people to rebel against the government. That's silly, imo. Because we protect the security of the state with a regular army, well trained and equipped, the conditions of the amendment no longer apply. Therefore the necessity of people to be armed no longer exists. In other words, it's a conditional amendment. Within itself, it sets up the criteria for it's own relevance. As circumstances have changed, our situation no longer meets the criteria.

    2. In any case, I don't really care all that much what the founders' intent was. There's nothing in the Constitution on how it's to be rightly interpreted.
    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Kinda hard to misinterpret that. Unless, of course, you disagree with it. Then I guess you could attempt to rationalize whatever you want.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -16
    Bumpus's Avatar
    Are you gonna drink that?

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2003
    Posts:
    20,826
    vCash:
    23647
    Loc:
    West-by-god-Virginny
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Trophies
    2013 Dolphins Logo1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Of course they do. All the time. As a teacher you should know better.
    That's why I fight against the bs
    Quote Quote  

  7. -17
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,724
    vCash:
    33822
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Bumpus View Post
    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Kinda hard to misinterpret that. Unless, of course, you disagree with it. Then I guess you could attempt to rationalize whatever you want.
    "It shall not be infringed" IF the situation meets a certain criteria... that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

    We don't need militias to secure the state. We have armies.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -18
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,724
    vCash:
    33822
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Bumpus View Post
    That's why I fight against the bs
    Like anyone else, you fight for your own pet positions. It has nothing to do with fighting for the purity of "the law". Otherwise you'd be against the expansion of due process that's taken place over the last 100 years or so as rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution have been labeled "fundamental" or "essential" by the Supreme Court.

    Where also is your outrage over "humane" executions? Why not execute people by the standards of 1789 as well, when "cruel and unusual" meant you could do things far harsher than you can today?
    Quote Quote  

  9. -19
    Bumpus's Avatar
    Are you gonna drink that?

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2003
    Posts:
    20,826
    vCash:
    23647
    Loc:
    West-by-god-Virginny
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Trophies
    2013 Dolphins Logo1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    "It shall not be infringed" IF the situation meets a certain criteria... that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

    We don't need militias to secure the state. We have armies.
    *sigh*

    I can't believe I'm arguing this again.


    The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    - "A well regulated militia" ... that's us. (You know, we the people)
    - "being necessary to the security of a free state" ... the citizens are responsible for keeping our State free from tryanny of any kind.
    - "the right of the people to keeps and bear arms" ... own and carry weapons.
    - "shall not be infringed." ... Can't be taken away.

    It says absolutely nothing about conditions where it may not apply. You're adding your own interpretation to something that was clearly spelled out by our founding fathers. The "State" had an army back then too. They were called Redcoats. I find it truly interesting how some people feel they can decide not only what rights we need and don't now, but also for future generations.

    Don't like the Amendment? That's cool. The founding fathers were even wise enough to put in a method to get rid of it - just get another amendment passed to nullify it.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -20
    Bumpus's Avatar
    Are you gonna drink that?

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2003
    Posts:
    20,826
    vCash:
    23647
    Loc:
    West-by-god-Virginny
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Trophies
    2013 Dolphins Logo1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Like anyone else, you fight for your own pet positions. It has nothing to do with fighting for the purity of "the law". Otherwise you'd be against the expansion of due process that's taken place over the last 100 years or so as rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution have been labeled "fundamental" or "essential" by the Supreme Court.
    Huh?

    The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (circa 1868):
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Not sure what you're talking about.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Where also is your outrage over "humane" executions? Why not execute people by the standards of 1789 as well, when "cruel and unusual" meant you could do things far harsher than you can today?
    If a mother****er gotta go, a mother****er gotta go. If a jury of one's peers decides you are to be executed, I personally don't care how it's accomplished.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Cool Lyric Interpretation Site
    By spydertl79 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-12-2005, 12:21 AM
  2. An interpretation of Saban's statement
    By Omaha_Dolfan in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-08-2005, 04:34 PM
  3. We WILL be switching to a 3-4.[interpretation/opinion (or fact:))]
    By inFINSible in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 03-08-2005, 04:24 PM
  4. Question concerning Biblical interpretation.
    By PhinPhan1227 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 431
    Last Post: 01-08-2005, 06:30 AM
  5. Would the Boston additon change our Draft ?
    By Pink_Dove in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-12-2004, 12:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •