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 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 59

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

  1. -21
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    6,732
    vCash:
    18716
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Bumpus View Post
    - "being necessary to the security of a free state" ... the citizens are responsible for keeping our State free from tryanny of any kind.
    What's so hypocritical about what you're saying is you are offering a rationalization for what the amendment means while criticizing me for doing so. The amendment does not say "tyranny" at all. It says "security." If you're going to be a literalist be a literalist.

    The amendment is basically structured like this:

    Because A is true, right B must not be infringed.

    If "A" is no longer true, then B no longer applies. I don't have to repeal anything, all I have to do is demonstrate that a militia isn't necessary for the security of the state.

    Also, I've got to laugh at the "State" being the Redcoats. You do realize that we had kicked out the Redcoats by 1791, right?
    I'm giving you a choice: either put on these glasses or start eatin' that trash can.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -22
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    6,732
    vCash:
    18716
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Bumpus View Post
    Huh?

    The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (circa 1868):

    Not sure what you're talking about.
    That's because you're not familiar with the history of "due process." Like a lot of the phrases in the Constitution, it can mean any damn thing that you want it to mean. It wasn't until the 1930s that a framework for rational basis and strict scrutiny emerged and certain rights not specifically mention in the Bill of Rights, for example, began to be classified as "essential" or not. Before then it was much easier to strip someone of their rights unless it was specifically protected.

    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.
    I dunno. I'm pretty happy we don't burn people at the stake anymore or sentence people to 20 years hard labor for theft.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -23
    Harry_Bagpipe's Avatar
    Archibald Meatpants

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    4,682
    vCash:
    4879
    Loc:
    Fort lauderdale
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Snakes!Dolphins HomerDolphin
    Must say. Wally does make a good point about how the meaning of "cruel and unusual" has evolved over the centuries.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -24
    MadDog 88's Avatar
    Sopwith Camel Pilot

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2008
    Posts:
    12,467
    vCash:
    8126
    Loc:
    Aviano, Italy
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Valandui View Post
    Rights can't change just because time has passed. If they can, they were never rights to begin with.
    Modifying is not taking them away.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -25
    MadDog 88's Avatar
    Sopwith Camel Pilot

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2008
    Posts:
    12,467
    vCash:
    8126
    Loc:
    Aviano, Italy
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Absolutely amazing that a document drafted 235 years ago is regarded as the letter of the law in today's world by some. Since the 2nd amendment was raised, I whole heartedly support the right to bear arms but requiring background checks and mandatory registration for all weapons is hardly infringing on that right.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -26
    Bumpus's Avatar
    Are you gonna drink that?

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2003
    Posts:
    19,407
    vCash:
    11034
    Loc:
    West-by-god-Virginny
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Trophies
    2013 Dolphins Logo1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by MadDog 88 View Post
    Absolutely amazing that a document drafted 235 years ago is regarded as the letter of the law in today's world by some. Since the 2nd amendment was raised, I whole heartedly support the right to bear arms but requiring background checks and mandatory registration for all weapons is hardly infringing on that right.
    Well ... That 235 year old document (U.S. Constitution) literally IS the letter of the law in the United States. That's what a constitution is for. So ....


    ************************


    As to the 2nd amendment part:

    To a point this is basically true, however it can easily be argued that not only would it NOT prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns, but could open the door to an all out attack on the right to bear arms.


    We already require background checks for most sales; those that are currently exempt are "face-to-face" private sales. People who oppose expanded bc's do so because they see it as simply another form of taxation (bc's aren't free) and government intrusion into the lives of private citizens ... Besides - Does anybody really think criminals that couldn't pass one in the first place are going to bother going to a FFL dealer in order to complete a firearms transaction??? That's what I thought. So (in reality) it would actually serve no beneficial purpose, other than to inconvenience people who DO follow the law. For the record, It's illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to a convicted felon - I've never sold a gun, but if I were to do so to someone I didn't personally know - I'd insist on going through a FFL dealer just to cover my ass.



    And, **** registration! Frankly, it's none of the government's damn business what guns I own.

    Why would the government need to register the firearms of it's citizens?
    - For future taxation purposes? **** that. What's next? Bull**** like another "poll tax"??? Firearms ownership is not a right reserved for the wealthy.
    - In order to later decide that our weapons are "too dangerous" for citizens to own? (i.e. confiscation) **** that!


    Now, this may all seem a bit paranoid.

    However, since there are elected officials in this country who adamantly believe more in strict gun control than constitutionally protected individual liberties ... I'm entitled to be a bit paranoid.
    Last edited by Bumpus; 04-23-2013 at 01:21 PM.
    2014 Goals:
    1) Win the next game.
    2) See goal #1





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

    The Chase for Lord Stanley Begins ...



    LETS GO PENS!
    Quote Quote  

  7. -27
    LouPhinFan's Avatar
    Perennial All-Pro

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2006
    Posts:
    4,625
    vCash:
    4980
    Loc:
    Louisville, KY
    Thanks / No Thanks
    No amount of legislating is going to completely protect soft targets from terrorists. There's just too many malls, churches, sporting events, and large gatherings of people in this country to protect. Its not going to matter what way you interrept the Constitution.
    Insert pithy saying here.

    Quote Quote  

  8. -28
    MadDog 88's Avatar
    Sopwith Camel Pilot

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2008
    Posts:
    12,467
    vCash:
    8126
    Loc:
    Aviano, Italy
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Bumpus View Post
    Psst ... That 235 year old document (U.S. Constitution) literally IS the letter of the law.
    Well then we need to repeal the laws preventing convicted felons from possessing firearms which violates that document.

    ---------- Post added at 06:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by LouPhinFan View Post
    No amount of legislating is going to completely protect soft targets from terrorists. There's just too many malls, churches, sporting events, and large gatherings of people in this country to protect. Its not going to matter what way you interrept the Constitution.
    It's not about eliminating. That's impossible. But reducing the ability to strike helps.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -29
    flynryan15's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2009
    Posts:
    11,839
    vCash:
    5184
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 912013 Dolphins LogoMike Wallace 11
    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.

    Come on Bumpus you can't expect because you have the right to bear arms that you can own a friggen anti-aircraft gun! Rights have limits and bounds, yes you have the right to free speech, but you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater.


    The above post is not subject to penalty under the TOS I declare the Hayden Fox defense. " It is impossible for the staff to know my context therefore I cannot be penalized"

    Quote Quote  

  10. -30
    BassFin's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2003
    Posts:
    675
    vCash:
    1000
    Loc:
    Orlando
    Thanks / No Thanks

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

    Background checks already exist.

    As for registration, how exactly is that going to stop any mentally unstable person from killing anyone?

    Would any of the legislation being talked up in regards to gun control have stopped the Sandy Hook shootings from happening?

    There are MILLIONS of law abiding, gun owning Americans. Why should their rights be "adjusted" when it's a miniscule fraction of the population that use firearms to commit heinous acts like the one in Connecticut?

    Bottom line is, history has shown us, after registration comes confiscation.

    I believe in American rights. I wish people would stop taking them for granted.
    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
  •