Democrats Rule! (and Bush still sux) [POLL]

Started by tshort, November 08, 2006, 05:31:59 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

How do you feel about the results of yesterday's elections?

Ecstatic - and about time
10 (33.3%)
OK - I don't care that much
3 (10%)
Bummed - doesn't look good for GOP
16 (53.3%)
Election?
1 (3.3%)

Total Members Voted: 29

Sobottka

#48
Quote from: 251am on November 15, 2006, 06:29:14 AM
  Sorry dude, you are DEAD wrong. It is a PRIVELAGE, not a right. Just like voting  legal gun ownership can be taken away quite simply. You are the one getting carried away with interpretations!

well its not a privelage...your dead wrong, the second amendment says"""""being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."""""  just because it can be taken away doesnt mean its not a right. having a drivers licence is a privelage gun ownership and voting are rights!
49
Lithium Motorsports
Suspension Solutions
http://www.facebook.com/team.chouffe

loc_dogg

Is that better Jeff? You have to remember, I was in the Army so I'm uneducated according to Kerry!

tshort

#50
Quote from: loc_dogg on November 15, 2006, 05:34:18 PM
Is that better Jeff? You have to remember, I was in the Army so I'm uneducated according to Kerry!

Actually, Kerry didn't mean what you're implying - he just can't tell a joke  ::)  (I thought this was well-reported in the media, and more or less accepted - maybe you weren't watching tv that week.).   

Regarding the "right to own and bear arms" argument - this one is getting kinda old, too.  It turns out that the actual amendment is seldom cited in full, and right-wing gun advocates focus on only the above part of it.  Do you know what the rest of it says?  OK. Here it is:

"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."

Interpreting this has been the subject of great debate for years.  Are "the people" it refers to individuals? Or were the authors referring to the collective society that makes up our country?  If the latter, then it could be that what they intended was to make sure that the right for states and cities to have an armed police force was a right that the Fed could not infringe.  This is a pretty well-established argument, and one that has not yet been completely refuted (or, unfortunately, upheld).

In any case, it's worth considering, especially since most people are unaware the first part of the amendment even exists.
Tom
ThinkFast Racing
AFM #280 EX
ex-CCS #128

Sobottka

Quote from: tshort on November 15, 2006, 06:02:47 PM
  (I thought this was well-reported in the media, and more or less accepted ...  


...by the kool-aid drinkers!!!
49
Lithium Motorsports
Suspension Solutions
http://www.facebook.com/team.chouffe

Sobottka

Quote from: tshort on November 15, 2006, 06:02:47 PM


Interpreting this has been the subject of great debate for years. 


this is the problem w/ the dems, everything is subject to interpretation/nuance. my quote is out of the first paragraph of the 2nd amendment, what is unclear about that?

btw- i dont hunt or own guns 
49
Lithium Motorsports
Suspension Solutions
http://www.facebook.com/team.chouffe

loc_dogg

I know, I know! I'm aware of what he meant to say! He just didn't say it that way! I have many guns and I dare you to try and come take one, you might actually get two, between the eyes! I'm a hostile, out of controle, ignorant, uneducated, white trash, redneck POS!! Why shouldn't I be allowed to own hand guns!? Fuck Dem's, fuck Reps, fuck Libs, I'm all about Communism!!  :preachon:  :lmao:  :lmao:

tshort

Robsob:  You left out the part about "a well-regulated militia".

(I don't hunt/own guns either. But I don't object to other people owning guns and hunting with them...it's just the AK-47's, Uzis, Glocks, etc I have a problem with.).

dogg: Communism?  Sure?  Why not Fascism?  Actually, based on what you are saying, you should check out anarchism - doesn't make you a bad person, btw. 
Tom
ThinkFast Racing
AFM #280 EX
ex-CCS #128

Sobottka

Quote from: tshort on November 15, 2006, 06:22:10 PM
Robsob:  You left out the part about "a well-regulated militia".


i dont wanna be in a militia... but i do want to (have the option to) keep my state free
49
Lithium Motorsports
Suspension Solutions
http://www.facebook.com/team.chouffe

lilroy

Quote from: robsob on November 15, 2006, 06:27:03 PM
i dont wanna be in a militia... but i do want to (have the option to) keep my state free

I think that this was the intention of this part of the constitution.  They wrote this shortly after arming themselves and overthrowing a government that was unwanted.  That said, it's pretty safe to say that they wanted future generations to have the right to arm themselves in the event that this little experiment known as the USA didn't work out like they intended. 

Pretty smart dudes really!!

I find it very difficult to argue that they intended this right only for states and cities.

Sobottka

#57
sorry, shoulda put "state" in quotes
Quote from: lilroy on November 15, 2006, 06:42:25 PM
I think that this was the intention of this part of the constitution.  They wrote this shortly after arming themselves and overthrowing a government that was unwanted.  That said, it's pretty safe to say that they wanted future generations to have the right to arm themselves in the event that this little experiment known as the USA didn't work out like they intended. 

Pretty smart dudes really!!



thats a bunch o garbage... why cant it say what it says??? they were "pretty smart dudes"  right? or  are we only protected from certain types of threats to our freedom (such as overthrow of government but not personal freedom etc.)  ? ? ?
49
Lithium Motorsports
Suspension Solutions
http://www.facebook.com/team.chouffe

251am

Quote from: robsob on November 15, 2006, 04:44:20 PM
well its not a privelage...your dead wrong, the second amendment says"""""being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."""""  just because it can be taken away doesnt mean its not a right. having a drivers licence is a privelage gun ownership and voting are rights!


  Not quite,  as with a driver's license the gun ownership and your privelage to vote can be taken away under LOTS of different circumstances. We have the "right" to bear arms in the situation of an oppressive government. Yeah, interpretation sucks.

  Here's why CCW is now a relative point of debate in Wisconsin, to me anyway; Wisconsin is surrounded by states that have legalized CCW. Arming bears will help us. Please, go to the WI woods this weekend and arm a bear for freedom from the FIB deer hunters!!   :lmao:

Sobottka

i think what you mean is our rights can (and will) be taken away but the constitution and bill of rights dont mention a drivers licence but do happen to mention gun ownership and voting... what  you mean is rights can be taken away such as felons, who lose their gun and voting rights but our rights (all of them) are a privelage!
49
Lithium Motorsports
Suspension Solutions
http://www.facebook.com/team.chouffe