Politicians/Media Refuse "proudly Gun Free" Sign
Politicians/Media refuse "proudly gun free" sign
Show me how it doesn't, because I see it as modifying the context of our representatives duties from representing its constituents' voices to acting for them, despite what its constituents think, because it knows better.
Bismarck.Dreadnot said: »
I didn't actually post anything.. I went to hit the TOP button and hit post in my daze of sleepyness.. and it posted nothing..
[+]
Leviathan.Behemothx said: »
I find it hilarious that some people would blindly accept anything written on a piece of paper in the 1780s.
It has been amended more than 25 times to adapt to a changing society, what makes you think it can't be changed again? The US would probably not exist today if people had followed the constitution to the letter.
It has been amended more than 25 times to adapt to a changing society, what makes you think it can't be changed again? The US would probably not exist today if people had followed the constitution to the letter.
Congressional polarization has a conservative effect on policy. At this rate it will be hard enough to adapt laws to the changing needs of society, much less the Constitution.
Leviathan.Behemothx said: »
I find it hilarious that some people would blindly accept anything written on a piece of paper in the 1780s.
It has been amended more than 25 times to adapt to a changing society, what makes you think it can't be changed again? The US would probably not exist today if people had followed the constitution to the letter.
It has been amended more than 25 times to adapt to a changing society, what makes you think it can't be changed again? The US would probably not exist today if people had followed the constitution to the letter.
bill of rights shouldn't be changed, ever.
sad part is: those men who wrote it in the 18th century had more knowledge and understanding than politicians today.
Not all of those men got along and they managed to pass such great documents, if we could pass something 1/100th as great in any congressional session today it would be nothing short of a miracle with the incompetent buffoons we have in congress.
[+]
Cerberus.Tikal said: »
His modification changes it a lot, actually.
@Jet: I'm going to have to disagree. I can support your right to own a gun. I can support your right to own ammunition. I can't support your right to have a cannon, a bomb, a military class plane, a military class boat, anti-aircraft weaponry, don't make me continue into the extreme.
@Jet: I'm going to have to disagree. I can support your right to own a gun. I can support your right to own ammunition. I can't support your right to have a cannon, a bomb, a military class plane, a military class boat, anti-aircraft weaponry, don't make me continue into the extreme.
My question is: why not?
Leviathan.Behemothx said: »
I find it hilarious that some people would blindly accept anything written on a piece of paper in the 1780s.
It has been amended more than 25 times to adapt to a changing society, what makes you think it can't be changed again? The US would probably not exist today if people had followed the constitution to the letter.
It has been amended more than 25 times to adapt to a changing society, what makes you think it can't be changed again? The US would probably not exist today if people had followed the constitution to the letter.
Perfectly stated. Spot on.
Bismarck.Dreadnot said: »
I didn't actually post anything.. I went to hit the TOP button and hit post in my daze of sleepyness.. and it posted nothing..
Cerberus.Tikal said: »
Show me how it doesn't, because I see it as modifying the context of our representatives duties from representing its constituents' voices to acting for them, despite what its constituents think, because it knows better.
In the context of things to which the electorate is mostly ignorant, this is the case. This is not how things work in the context of "protecting minorities from the will of the majority."
Fenrir.Sylow said: »
Cerberus.Tikal said: »
Show me how it doesn't, because I see it as modifying the context of our representatives duties from representing its constituents' voices to acting for them, despite what its constituents think, because it knows better.
In the context of things to which the electorate is mostly ignorant, this is the case. This is not how things work in the context of "protecting minorities from the will of the majority."
that's what it's designed to do, whether or not it works in practice, well, how much does work in practice?
Because a man in China can stab 22 children with a knife. I am afraid of the possibilities should he have a nuke, just because his government believes he has the "right to bare arms."
Cerberus.Tikal said: »
Because a man in China can stab 22 children with a knife. I am afraid of the possibilities should he have a nuke, just because his government believes he has the "right to bare arms."
Last I checked, lead isn't a restricted item.
I don't have a problem with private citizens owning tanks, planes, etc.
They make them after all.
Cerberus.Tikal said: »
I'm going to have to disagree. I can support your right to own a gun. I can support your right to own ammunition. I can't support your right to have a cannon, a bomb, a military class plane, a military class boat, anti-aircraft weaponry, don't make me continue into the extreme.
Basically in conjunction with the "good cause" law in CA. and this..
Is what I was referring to Tikal. I think there is also some restriction on ammo that can potentially hurt wildlife that I read about containing lead.
L.A. councilman seeks ban on ammo for high-capacity gun magazines
Quote:
Although the California penal code now prohibits the manufacture and sale of magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, Krekorian said in a council motion Tuesday that a ban on the possession of the magazines within city limits could further improve public safety.
Jetackuu said: »
Fenrir.Sylow said: »
Cerberus.Tikal said: »
Show me how it doesn't, because I see it as modifying the context of our representatives duties from representing its constituents' voices to acting for them, despite what its constituents think, because it knows better.
In the context of things to which the electorate is mostly ignorant, this is the case. This is not how things work in the context of "protecting minorities from the will of the majority."
that's what it's designed to do, whether or not it works in practice, well, how much does work in practice?
[citation needed]
Jetackuu said: »
Cerberus.Tikal said: »
His modification changes it a lot, actually.
@Jet: I'm going to have to disagree. I can support your right to own a gun. I can support your right to own ammunition. I can't support your right to have a cannon, a bomb, a military class plane, a military class boat, anti-aircraft weaponry, don't make me continue into the extreme.
@Jet: I'm going to have to disagree. I can support your right to own a gun. I can support your right to own ammunition. I can't support your right to have a cannon, a bomb, a military class plane, a military class boat, anti-aircraft weaponry, don't make me continue into the extreme.
My question is: why not?
Haha, reminds me of: "People with guns don't understand. That's why they get guns. Too many misunderstandings. -Jerry Seinfeld"
Jetackuu said: »
Cerberus.Tikal said: »
Because a man in China can stab 22 children with a knife. I am afraid of the possibilities should he have a nuke, just because his government believes he has the "right to bare arms."
Last I checked, lead isn't a restricted item.
I don't have a problem with private citizens owning tanks, planes, etc.
They make them after all.
Fenrir.Sylow said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Fenrir.Sylow said: »
Cerberus.Tikal said: »
Show me how it doesn't, because I see it as modifying the context of our representatives duties from representing its constituents' voices to acting for them, despite what its constituents think, because it knows better.
In the context of things to which the electorate is mostly ignorant, this is the case. This is not how things work in the context of "protecting minorities from the will of the majority."
that's what it's designed to do, whether or not it works in practice, well, how much does work in practice?
[citation needed]
a republic was formed to follow the laws of the constitution to protect the people, instead of a democracy which only cares about majority rule.
fundamental difference.
Cerberus.Tikal said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Cerberus.Tikal said: »
Because a man in China can stab 22 children with a knife. I am afraid of the possibilities should he have a nuke, just because his government believes he has the "right to bare arms."
Last I checked, lead isn't a restricted item.
I don't have a problem with private citizens owning tanks, planes, etc.
They make them after all.
When the law abiding citizen that owns a tank or jet goes crazy and decides to mass murder, they can blow up the WHOLE school now!
Fortunately there are limitations on the second amendment, just like there are on the first. You cant just own whatever weapons you want willy nilly. Citizens can own tanks and guns that have been de weaponized.
Cerberus.Tikal said: »
Jetackuu said: »
Cerberus.Tikal said: »
Because a man in China can stab 22 children with a knife. I am afraid of the possibilities should he have a nuke, just because his government believes he has the "right to bare arms."
Last I checked, lead isn't a restricted item.
I don't have a problem with private citizens owning tanks, planes, etc.
They make them after all.
that doesn't really answer the question.
Fortunately.
You didn't pose a question.
You didn't pose a question.
Ragnarok.Blurrski said: »
When the law abiding citizen that owns a tank or jet goes crazy and decides to mass murder, they can blow up the WHOLE school now!
Fortunately there are limitations on the second amendment, just like there are on the first. You cant just own whatever weapons you want willy nilly. Citizens can own tanks and guns that have been de weaponized.
Fortunately there are limitations on the second amendment, just like there are on the first. You cant just own whatever weapons you want willy nilly. Citizens can own tanks and guns that have been de weaponized.
I disagree with both restrictions, rights aren't meant to be restricted.
by the way: news flash: you don't need a tank to blow up something.
A representative democracy was formed because direct democracy would be extremely problematic to govern 13 bickering entities covering an area from Maine to South Carolina when the fastest means of communication was messenger on horseback.
Jetackuu said: »
a republic was formed to follow the laws of the constitution to protect the people, instead of a democracy which only cares about majority rule.
fundamental difference.
fundamental difference.
like it was pointed out, times change and laws change. No matter how much people want it, or believe it, they dont have rights. Were all property of the united states government, and if they want us to jump, we just say how high ? or buck and go to jail.
edit: like it or lump it. there are other countries to live.
edit: like it or lump it. there are other countries to live.
Fenrir.Sylow said: »
A representative democracy was formed because direct democracy would be extremely problematic to govern 13 bickering entities covering an area from Maine to South Carolina when the fastest means of communication was messenger on horseback.
while I'm sure that was part of it, I and history disagree with that being the major reason.
I understand that a lot of minorities get the short end of the stick, I have even managed to place myself into a minority and often get the short end on that, and watch everyday as people and children get shafted, humanity is sick really, it takes a long time for society to evolve.
I'm for increasing fundamental rights, not decreasing them.
Ok fine, if history disagrees with me, provide a citation.
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Jetackuu said: »
a republic was formed to follow the laws of the constitution to protect the people, instead of a democracy which only cares about majority rule.
fundamental difference.
fundamental difference.
:P
[+]
Ragnarok.Blurrski said: »
like it was pointed out, times change and laws change. No matter how much people want it, or believe it, they dont have rights. Were all property of the united states government, and if they want us to jump, we just say how high ? or buck and go to jail.
edit: like it or lump it. there are other countries to live.
edit: like it or lump it. there are other countries to live.
Rights shouldn't change, only grow.
People do have rights.
People are not property.
Not moving, and nice fallacy.
[+]
Rights are not universal.
Fenrir.Sylow said: »
Ok fine, if history disagrees with me, provide a citation.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Jetackuu said: »
Fenrir.Sylow said: »
Ok fine, if history disagrees with me, provide a citation.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
You're going to have to cite the exact part which states that the purpose of the representative democracy is to protect the rights of the minority.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.