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 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 1213141516171819 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 188

Thread: Why You NEED Standard Capacity Magzines: Multiple Home Invaders

  1. -161
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,587
    vCash:
    13170
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Re: Why You NEED Standard Capacity Magzines: Multiple Home Invaders

    Quote Originally Posted by PhinzN703 View Post
    Hmm. Muskets and cannons vs. drones, machine guns, Terminators walking around, bombs, hijackings, nukes, etc.

    Same threats back then and up into now right?
    By your reasoning, the threat is much greater now and supports an even greater need for self-protection.
    Quote Quote  

  2. -162
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,284
    vCash:
    30561
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by GoFins! View Post
    Why isn't this line of this "thinking" ever applied to other Rights outlined in our Constitution and it's Amendments?
    It is. It's called the "living constitution" argument.

    The best example of it in action is the concept of "cruel and unusual punishment." What was cruel and unusual in 1791 is different than it is now. Firing squads and hangings were considered humane, with torturous methods of execution like quartering considered out of bounds.

    Today we define firing squads and hangings as cruel and unusual, because that's the way society's morals have evolved. If you apply this kind of thinking to the Constitution as a whole you get the living constitutionalist argument.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -163
    GoFins!'s Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2008
    Posts:
    492
    vCash:
    1096
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Here's an updated version of Voltaire's quote. (Wait though ... shouldn't we first prove that he actually said it? Can anyone prove that it wasn't attributed to him after his death? Are there any original manuscripts that we can prove were penned by him?)

    If he were alive today this is what he would have said:
    A witty saying proves nothing if it challenges my point of view.

    And of course your like history. Except when it gets in your way. Like how our Founding Fathers slaughtered native americans, stole land, engaged in slavery, labeled political opponents as traitors, dueled to settle policy issues, and supported castration.
    All totally irrelevant to this thread.
    “I’m somewhat disappointed that more African Americans don’t think for themselves and just go with whatever they’re supposed to say and think."


    - Dr. Benjamin Carson
    Quote Quote  

  4. -164
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,587
    vCash:
    13170
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Re: Why You NEED Standard Capacity Magzines: Multiple Home Invaders

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Three things:

    1. That quote is without context. In what respect did he mean it?

    2. Jefferson was not a party to writing the Constitution or the 2nd amendment. And even if he had some kind of tangential influence, especially on his close friend James Madison, his voice is but one among many.

    3. Jefferson felt that the constitution should be rewritten every 19 years. Here's a quote from a letter to the aforementioned Madison:



    http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/...n/jeff1000.htm

    So not only did Thomas Jefferson not say what you guys thought he said, he's even telling you specifically to forget what he thinks and make up your own ****ing mind about this stuff.
    Now the letter to Madison is interesting, I have never seen that. In what context was his 19 years statement presented? Was he speaking about the US Constitution, The Virginia Constitution, or both? Was this concept ever given much consideration in relation to the Constitution or was Jefferson alone in this belief? I read the Federalist Papers but don't remember this concept being presented.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -165
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,284
    vCash:
    30561
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Voltaire was highly appreciative of irony and I'm sure he recognized the irony of his own quote. Candide is still one of the funniest books ever written, imo. Especially if you're at all familiar with Leibniz's philosophy of this being the "best of all possible worlds", of which the book is a kind of critique.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -166
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,587
    vCash:
    13170
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Re: Why You NEED Standard Capacity Magzines: Multiple Home Invaders

    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    It is. It's called the "living constitution" argument.

    The best example of it in action is the concept of "cruel and unusual punishment." What was cruel and unusual in 1791 is different than it is now. Firing squads and hangings were considered humane, with torturous methods of execution like quartering considered out of bounds.

    Today we define firing squads and hangings as cruel and unusual, because that's the way society's morals have evolved. If you apply this kind of thinking to the Constitution as a whole you get the living constitutionalist argument.
    I don't necessarily disagree with you here but isn't this pretty much limited to interpretation...essentially courts legislating? No laws were changed, some lawyer just convinced a judge to rule his way and it became precedent. This does scare me a lot, especially considering the ludicrous politics that have become involved in nominating or confirming a Supreme Court Justice.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -167
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,284
    vCash:
    30561
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    Now the letter to Madison is interesting, I have never seen that. In what context was his 19 years statement presented? Was he dosing about the US Constitution, The Virginia Constitution, or both? Was this concept ever given much consideration in relation to the Constitution or was Jefferson alone in this belief? I read the Federalist Papers but don't remember this concept being presented.
    It wouldn't have been in the Federalist papers in any case as Jefferson was an anti-federalist at least in his general philosophy (until he became President, anyway). He didn't contribute to the anti-federalist papers, though. I just pulled down my copy from the shelf and checked, lol. When the Constitution was being written and argued I believe he was living in France.

    Anyway, Jefferson felt that every 19 years was considered a new generation, which should be allowed to make it's own laws and rules. His reason for coming up with 19 is sort of convoluted and involves integers of the life expectancy or something like that. What the quote I posted is basically arguing is that if the rules are just, they will be extended by the next generation. In a way it's not unlike Noam Chomsky's idea of collectivist syndicates, which is a reaction to the non-choice we have to follow the law where we're born.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -168
    GoFins!'s Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2008
    Posts:
    492
    vCash:
    1096
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    It is. It's called the "living constitution" argument.

    The best example of it in action is the concept of "cruel and unusual punishment." What was cruel and unusual in 1791 is different than it is now. Firing squads and hangings were considered humane, with torturous methods of execution like quartering considered out of bounds.

    Today we define firing squads and hangings as cruel and unusual, because that's the way society's morals have evolved. If you apply this kind of thinking to the Constitution as a whole you get the living constitutionalist argument.
    I don't understand how "living constitutionalists" can selectively update some Amendments but not others. Quartering, hanging and firing squads are not mentioned in the Constitution. The "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is specifically mentioned.

    Using Phinz argument "Freedom of the Press", for example, should only apply to newspapers, not modern forms of the press.

    Society's morals may have evolved, but the morals of our government have steadily devolved.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -169
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,587
    vCash:
    13170
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Re: Why You NEED Standard Capacity Magzines: Multiple Home Invaders

    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    I prefer this quote:



    And of course your like history. Except when it gets in your way. Like how our Founding Fathers slaughtered native americans, stole land, engaged in slavery, labeled political opponents as traitors, dueled to settle policy issues, and supported castration. But hey, the new history books dont mention that stuff, i wonder why:



    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/ed...n/13texas.html
    Two things, 1. the Founding Father's activities were very common then and were not necessarily seen as barbaric until much later. Most of the world still participates in these activities; at least we chose to walk a different path. 2. Most public schools, even in Texas, are still teaching a decidedly liberal curriculum. Texas just made a public declaration to come back toward the middle. For what it is worth, revisionist history is always wrong - you can't learn from your past if you don't acknowledge it.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -170
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,284
    vCash:
    30561
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    I don't necessarily disagree with you here but isn't this pretty much limited to interpretation...essentially courts legislating? No laws were changed, some lawyer just convinced a judge to rule his way and it became precedent. This does scare me a lot, especially considering the ludicrous politics that have become involved in nominating or confirming a Supreme Court Justice.
    Either style of interpretation has it's dangers, I agree. The Courts generally speaking apply a lot of weight to judicial precedence, which has a way of making shifts in the law rather gradual. And that goes for both sides, each them trying to pull the law either into the future or back into the past. Judges who are willing to throw out established precedence in favor of their particular style of interpretation are not the norm. Clarence Thomas is an example of this from a conservative side. On the liberal side, I know it's come out that Sonia Sotomayor does not believe in the individual right to own guns, which came out in a brief she wrote as a clerk. That's pretty far from established precedence.

    The Court also places a bigger emphasis than you would think on popular opinion. They don't want to be too far out of the mainstream because they're concerned about maintaining the Court's authorial position relative to the law. They're quite sensitive to the "activist judges" label, in other words. A decision like Roe vs. Wade, for example, whatever you think of it legally, is not an experience they're enthusiastic to repeat, since making a judgement so far out of whack with the opinion of the guy on the street makes the Court a target, rather than an arbiter.
    Last edited by TheWalrus; 05-07-2013 at 04:21 PM.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-05-2013, 11:20 AM
  2. Saudis signal boost in production capacity
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-21-2008, 09:42 PM
  3. Iran Doubles Nuke Enrichment Capacity
    By WharfRat in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-28-2006, 03:34 PM
  4. Again with the double standard
    By PhinPhan1227 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-28-2006, 02:16 PM
  5. Double standard
    By 67Stang in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-30-2004, 01:54 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
  •