Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/16/2002 9:22:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/16/2002 9:31:02 PM EDT
... I care everything about the [b]US Constitution[/b]. I don't like shooting though.
Link Posted: 4/16/2002 9:33:13 PM EDT
Guns are evil. There is too much killing goin on in the world to allow silly civilians the option of owning these killing machines. We must work together to ban all instruments of killing. We must do it for the chillinz.
Link Posted: 4/16/2002 9:37:18 PM EDT
The US Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. The limited republic based on individual rights is the finest form of government one could hope for. (Not a knee-jerk reaction - I'm studying political science.) Unfortunately, in the end, the Constitution doesn't matter. We are serfs. The wealthiest, happiest serfs in the history of man, but serfs nonetheless. And we CHOSE to be serfs, because being ruled is easier than self control. The 3rd amendment is the last unmolested article of the Bill of Rights. I say keep shooting though; in a decade or so our masters will need skilled capos, so at least there's some job security for the martially competent. This coming Friday is Warszaw Ghetto rememberance day. Don't forget it.
Link Posted: 4/16/2002 9:48:39 PM EDT
If you think about it rationally, what's really scary about the Constitution is, that people had to actually write down all this information about rights of the people and how government should be structured. You would think most of this would be common sense, but you look around the world today [i]and[/i] back then, and realize there are and were a lot of screwed up countries with suppressed people living within their borders. My support of what the US Constitution and Bill of Rights includes or doesn't include doesn't really have anything to do with fireams ownership. That said, I still think politicians have too much power of their own while supposedly "representing their constituents" wishes in the Capitol.
Link Posted: 4/16/2002 9:50:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By QBit: This coming Friday is Warszaw Ghetto rememberance day. Don't forget it.
View Quote
Geez. APRIL 19TH IS PATRIOT'S DAY! Have your forgotten that? [img]www.ar15.com/members/albums/Imbroglio%2Flexline%2Ejpg[/img] "Stand your ground! Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war LET IT BEGIN HERE!"- Captain John Parker to the MILITIA at Lexington Green April 19, 1775.
Link Posted: 4/16/2002 9:50:29 PM EDT
No Constitution here but i can read me sum.
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 2:16:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 9:14:40 AM EDT
I was the only one at work who was aware that it was Patriot's Day and put up a Cullpepper Militia flag (Don't Tread On Me). To be honest, the Bill of Rights is one of the only things that is keeping America from becoming the biggest banana republic on the planet. Unfortunately, the masses seem to not care if it is chipped at bit by bit. I still like L Neil Smith's idea of [url=http://www.lneilsmith.com/bor_enforcement.html]Bill of Rights Enforcement[/url] and try and discuss it with people as often as I can. We are still Americans. Many people still love Liberty. I know many younger folks who, when given the right ideas and information, take to it like ducks to water. What might surprise a lot of you are many are of the punk rock crowd. Well...at least the ones who aren't just in the scene for beer only...
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 5:39:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/20/2002 7:43:32 PM EDT by Blaze-Of-Glory]
I would be willing to go out in a blaze of glory to defend the Constitution. It's that document that got this country off to a great start; and it's attacks on that document that I consider to be the most threatening attacks on this country. To those who don't know the Constitution -- especially the Bill of Rights -- I don't blame or flame you for not learning about it; but please be warned: history teaches that governments tend to increase their size for their own benefit at the expense of their citizens. The Bill of Rights was written to protect American citizens from their own government. If you don't want to end up like oppressed citizens of other nations, you might want to take a closer look at the Constitution and compare its promises with government we have today. "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 5:43:35 PM EDT
19.5 [url]http://www.enterprisemission.com/[/url]
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 5:47:24 PM EDT
You are preaching to the choir. It is everyone else that we need to worry about.
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 5:53:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 6:08:23 PM EDT
Constitution, a living document? I say HELL NO, and therefore-GOOD Liberals-BAD Firearm-GOOD
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 6:24:18 PM EDT
yeah LotBoy, wassup with that?
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 6:24:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 6:38:08 PM EDT
WEBSTER DICTIONARY: Arm: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense. Doesn't seem to exclude machineguns if you ask me.
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 6:59:01 PM EDT
The people who float the LIVING DOCUMENT shit just want to pervert what it says... If they can get people to buy their horseshit then the WORD of the Constitution would have no meaning whatsoever. They could change it at whim, after all it is "Living" Nah, No thanks GO AWAY!. When people can't get through the language they have a tendency to either create a new one or destroy what is stopping them. Language is important and the Language of the CONSTITUTION Needs to stand as solid as granite and unyeilding for all to see for Thousand's or years. WORDS DON'T CHANGE MEANINGS PEOPLE DON'T CHANGE. The only thing that changes is technology. But people stay the same. The document is for the people not the technology. Ben
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 7:05:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/20/2002 7:10:24 PM EDT by Benjamin0001]
Judicial Activists, Liberals, and Socialists Have a tendency to go after the Constitution like a Teenage Boy with hormones Raging. They will say anything they can to get what they want, but just like Teenagers they are totally unaware of the repercusions and just like Teenagers they don't care. Self-Discipline is the hallmark of Maturity and Judicial Activists do not possess that. So they shoot their wad, degrade some poor fathers(God) daughter(Liberty) and run away from the consequences by offering deniles in the form of excuses when she gets pregnant. Nah You leave my girl alone. Her name is America. She is a Virgin and she should stay that way. Ben
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 7:05:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 7:25:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/20/2002 7:27:21 PM EDT by Benjamin0001]
First I posted what the Hell does liberty have to do with Technology. After thinking about it, it became clear that I was "BEgging the Question" It is that essential Liberty that gives rise to ALL Technology. The FREEDOM TO THINK. THE FREEDOM TO CREATE, The Freedom to Own property (Which creates the freedom to prosper and the stability to do it over many many years.) It is all essential. After thinking about it some more I would add that, it is the SOURCE of Technology (Man) that is addressed by the Constitution. Ben
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 7:27:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FirearmTom1: You are preaching to the choir. It is everyone else that we need to worry about.
View Quote
just what i was thinking. while it may not be true that AR15 members just wanna shoot and don't know a lot about guns, the doofus i saw at the range today probably fits that bill. i thinks it's safe to say that a majority (but i don't know how much of a majority) are not adamant about the Constitution in any way, either knowing it, living it, or protecting it. but i wouldn't say that about this group. rather, exactly the opposite.
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 7:27:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 7:28:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: Benjamin, doesn't the document have to address technology?
View Quote
no, actually it doesn't. technology has to make sure it doesn't infringe upon the rights of the people or violate the Constitution in any way, shape, or form. i think you're putting the cart before the horse here.
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 7:32:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/20/2002 7:38:15 PM EDT by Benjamin0001]
First Amendment: Definition of speech (and press) has been expanded to cover many forms of communication that have come about due to technological progress. Second Amendment: Should only old blackpowder weapons be protected? Fourth Amendment: Recently a case went before the SC about infrared scanning equipment that was used to detect a "high level of heat" from OUTside the scanned house. That information was used to build a case that culminated in drug possession charges. The argument from the police agency that conducted the scans was that the heat that was scanned, and the scanning equipment itself, was not inside the house, and therefore was fair game. That argument was shot down. Do you see the implications? Oh yeah, there never was a search warrant. Fifth Amendment: Stop Light Cameras are being argued as a violation of the "nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due proces of law" clause. See Sixth Amendment as well
View Quote
I understand what you are saying. And you are correct. I was speaking of the Fundamentals. And by my take on it, there is a Heirarchy of Language that the constitution seems to follow. That Freedom of Speech includes any forms that are used to it. Its like they see that Speech is the Foundation , and any forms that also propogate speech are also protected. So they are merely expanding the definition. They are not giving it powers outside that which it already possess's. However those who argue for a Living Constitution are those that would see the 2nd Amendment read completely differently BECAUSE OF THE TIMES. Which is absurd and stupidly shortsighted.
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 7:35:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 7:37:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Benjamin0001:
First Amendment: Definition of speech (and press) has been expanded to cover many forms of communication that have come about due to technological progress. Second Amendment: Should only old blackpowder weapons be protected? Fourth Amendment: Recently a case went before the SC about infrared scanning equipment that was used to detect a "high level of heat" from OUTside the scanned house. That information was used to build a case that culminated in drug possession charges. The argument from the police agency that conducted the scans was that the heat that was scanned, and the scanning equipment itself, was not inside the house, and therefore was fair game. That argument was shot down. Do you see the implications? Oh yeah, there never was a search warrant. Fifth Amendment: Stop Light Cameras are being argued as a violation of the "nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due proces of law" clause. See Sixth Amendment as well
View Quote
I understand what you are saying. And you are correct. I was speaking of the Fundamentals. Your new Laws are not included in the Text or Document of the Constitution. So my Question is this, "If those laws are reversed, does the reversal result in the Constitution being corrupted?"
View Quote
hey, mind if i jump in this argument? no? good. [:D] i don't think i'm following everything exactly, but isn't it possible for laws to be reversed precisely because they violated the Constitution. in which case, the Constitution would not have been corrupted, only strengthened. or were thinking (and using those examples) along a different line?
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 7:37:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 7:41:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Originally Posted By 10112002:
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: Benjamin, doesn't the document have to address technology?
View Quote
no, actually it doesn't. technology has to make sure it doesn't infringe upon the rights of the people or violate the Constitution in any way, shape, or form. i think you're putting the cart before the horse here.
View Quote
You and me are saying the same thing. However, my point is that the document is intended to protect individual rights, and without admitting the role of objects that can be used to violate rights, it is more difficult to argue about the proper and improper (and illegal) application of the technology.
View Quote
right, it's the application of technology, not the technology itself? right? i still think it's a fairly simple process. is said technology being used to violate Constitutional principles? yes or no? if yes, then it can't be used in that way any more (i.e., heat scanning devices, or face mapping cameras, or whatever it was they had on florida streets). if no, then no problem.
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 7:43:54 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 7:49:27 PM EDT
I corrected my post on the first page, this is a difficult thing to think about. Those expanded definitions are important. Double Feed Wrote:
However, my point is that the document is intended to protect individual rights, and without admitting the role of objects that can be used to violate rights, it is more difficult to argue about the proper and improper (and illegal) application of the technology.
View Quote
10112002 is correct. True, and I was merely talking of something more fundamental when I stated this.
First I posted what the Hell does liberty have to do with Technology. After thinking about it, it became clear that I was "BEgging the Question" It is that essential Liberty that gives rise to ALL Technology. The FREEDOM TO THINK. THE FREEDOM TO CREATE, The Freedom to Own property (Which creates the freedom to prosper and the stability to do it over many many years.) It is all essential. After thinking about it some more I would add that, it is the SOURCE of Technology (Man) that is addressed by the Constitution.
View Quote
And you Double Feed are correct and its exactly what happens when SCOTUS expands a definition. What we need here is a law that is clearly unconstitutional and the SCOTUS arguments that were for and against it. I would like to see how the Constitution can be misconstrued in a Judicial Activist manner, Does anyone know of one?? Ben
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 8:08:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/20/2002 8:11:02 PM EDT by 10112002]
Originally Posted By Benjamin0001: I would like to see how the Constitution can be misconstrued in a Judicial Activist manner, Does anyone know of one?? Ben
View Quote
yeah, any one of the gun laws on the books that limits ownership or carryship (i just made up that word [:P]).
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 8:10:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: ARLady -->[stick]<---Me hehe
View Quote
not trying to be. sorry. [:I]
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 8:16:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/20/2002 8:18:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/21/2002 9:26:15 AM EDT
I don't own any guns, I just have a lot of pictures of them [:D]
Link Posted: 4/21/2002 9:31:22 AM EDT
I don't own one.
Link Posted: 4/21/2002 9:49:24 AM EDT
Sad but true but I believe many gun owners dont care about anything but themselves, Let alone the Constitution. I watch people who buy guns today they just dont seem to have that flame instilled them. Then they bitch at the gun shop owner becuase the new Beretta pistol they bought only comes with 10 round mags and they are upset becuase on TV thier mags hold 15 rounds. They dont understand that law makers are stripping away thier rights. They think its just a stupid law not a stripping away of thier rights. The one gunshop I shoot at and buy stuff from askes every customer when they buy a gun if they are a NRA member and offers to sign him up if he is not. Every single time I see a customer like the one above buying a firearms and the salesmen askes if he is a NRA member the answer is always NO, And everytime the salesman askes if he wants to sign up the customer always says I dont want to waste $35 on that. He trys to explain why they should join but many of todays gun owners just dont understand. So becuase of this train of thought we will probaly lose this battle. I beleive what the Constitution stands for and I wil try to instill that in my kids someday.
Link Posted: 4/24/2002 7:54:04 AM EDT
I am looking for a few more opinions
Link Posted: 4/24/2002 2:08:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/24/2002 2:13:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/24/2002 2:33:44 PM EDT
the constitution (along with the declaration and articles of confederation) are the foundation of the greatest experiment ever in the social history of mankind. guns by themselves are irrelevant (fun, but irrelevant) [b]except[/b] that they give individuals the power to defend the rights set forth. one of the major strengths of the constitution is that it [b]is[/b] a "living document". the founders were wise enough to know that they could not forsee every possibility, and they built in a mechanism for controlled change. that's why we have more than 10 amendments, and why we had, then got rid of prohibition, and why slavery is dead. the only thing i might change is to make the bill of rights inviolable. it should say right there that you may not amend, delete or abridge them, that to do so is to dissolve the union.
Top Top