Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

THEE NYG SWAG THREAD

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by dezzzR View Post
    you should care. Im a constitutionalist. It bothers me very much when todays politicians try and alter our constitution or try to interpret it a different way after 200 years. The founding fathers thought it so important its the only amendment that says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
    And taking these actions when our economy is going down the drain is even more reason to be alarmed.
    Dezz, you do know why they are called Amendments right? It specifically states that they should be tailored to the times when applicable. Youre not a constitutionalist, you dont know what that means. youre a conservative who doesnt want anything to change.

    AMEND(v): 1)
    improve or correct something: to make changes to something, especially a piece of text, in order to improve or correct it
    2)
    revise legislation: to revise or alter formally a motion, bill, or constitution
    3)
    behave better than before: to behave in a more acceptable way than in the past


    Yes, all 3 of those things is why the constituion should be changed to adapt to the times. IT IS LITERALLY THE MEANING OF THE WORD!!!
    Last edited by JPizzack; 02-13-2013, 12:25 PM.
    Oderint Dum Metuant

    It's too bad, I'm too good....

    Comment


    • Btw, I just want to point out that you just allowed Daven to come into the thread after a month, and incite a political debate in true Daven fashion. Congrats on feeding the trolls.(I'm guilty too obviously, but you 3 always take it to another level lol)
      Oderint Dum Metuant

      It's too bad, I'm too good....

      Comment


      • What can I say Pezz, I'm good at what I do

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JPizzack View Post
          Dezz, you do know why they are called Amendments right? It specifically states that they should be tailored to the times when applicable. Youre not a constitutionalist, you dont know what that means. youre a conservative who doesnt want anything to change.
          Again, the second amendment is the only one that says "shall not be infringed" Pizz. You like history, google founding fathers and gun rights and read some of their quotes. One with half a brain would think what they warned is starting to happen.

          Comment


          • The reason I'm against removing gun rights is because it creates a situation which gives an advantage to criminals.

            The people committing gun crimes will have guns no matter what the government does, making it harder for normal citizens to get guns, and restricting the type of guns they can get can only lead to one outcome.

            MORE death and injury resulting from violent assaults.

            This is already a proven fact, the states in which legally owned guns are most prevalent are the safest states when it comes to gun crime.
            Last edited by DavenIII; 02-13-2013, 12:43 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by dezzzR View Post
              Again, the second amendment is the only one that says "shall not be infringed" Pizz. You like history, google founding fathers and gun rights and read some of their quotes. One with half a brain would think what they warned is starting to happen.
              It also says a well-regulated militia. Rednecks, white trash, and in my eyes anyone who loves "SHOOTIN THEM GUNS", is the complete opposite of a well-regulated militia.

              You are doing what christian literalists are doing, and only deciphering what you want to believe. You can keep your guns, but then your job should be a town/county/state militia. Then you can complain if they take your guns away. Right now, it's a blatant abuse of an amendment.
              Oderint Dum Metuant

              It's too bad, I'm too good....

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JPizzack View Post
                It also says a well-regulated militia. Rednecks, white trash, and in my eyes anyone who loves "SHOOTIN THEM GUNS", is the complete opposite of a well-regulated militia.

                You are doing what christian literalists are doing, and only deciphering what you want to believe. You can keep your guns, but then your job should be a town/county/state militia. Then you can complain if they take your guns away. Right now, it's a blatant abuse of an amendment.
                Are those "rednecks" doing all the killing? No its the gang bangers in the states with the toughest gun laws. Whats wrong with "Shootin them guns". Tell me specifically whats wrong with me going to the range or hunting? No im reading in black and white what it says. Well regulated militia means it should act as an army if need be. Good lllord people read ya history.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by dezzzR View Post
                  Are those "rednecks" doing all the killing? No its the gang bangers in the states with the toughest gun laws. Whats wrong with "Shootin them guns". Tell me specifically whats wrong with me going to the range or hunting? No im reading in black and white what it says. Well regulated militia means it should act as an army if need be. Good lllord people read ya history.
                  It literally says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

                  that seems pretty clear cut. back in the 17-1800s, states HAD militias. Since we no longer have those, we're not adhering to the amendment, thus requiring a change to the text.
                  You could say the police could be regarded as a militia, and they do bear arms obviously. But then you have to consider what side you wanna be on. The side that says the police have the best interest of every citizen in mind.....or the side that thinks "it's just a municipality, thus, a government employee.

                  These are the same exact things being debated Dezz.
                  Oderint Dum Metuant

                  It's too bad, I'm too good....

                  Comment


                  • Aaaaaanyway.....I've tried not to make it a practice to talk about this nonsense. Believe it or not, I'm FAIRLY indifferent about gun control policies. I do feel people have the right to protect themselves. But you dont need an AK47 for that.
                    You can't even get a pistol permit in NY if you state "Protection" or "self defense" as a reason for the application.
                    Oderint Dum Metuant

                    It's too bad, I'm too good....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JPizzack View Post
                      It literally says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

                      that seems pretty clear cut. back in the 17-1800s, states HAD militias. Since we no longer have those, we're not adhering to the amendment, thus requiring a change to the text.
                      You could say the police could be regarded as a militia, and they do bear arms obviously. But then you have to consider what side you wanna be on. The side that says the police have the best interest of every citizen in mind.....or the side that thinks "it's just a municipality, thus, a government employee.

                      These are the same exact things being debated Dezz.
                      Again,Its in place in case a foreign power invades or the government grows too big pizz.
                      After planning the invasion of Pearl Harbor an admiral asked Yamamoto "should we start planing for the invasion of America?" Yamamoto looked at him like he was crazy and said "There would be an American rifle behind every blade of grass". Thats just one great example of the power of the 2nd amendment and letting citizens be armed.
                      The police are not a militia, citizens are.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JPizzack View Post
                        Aaaaaanyway.....I've tried not to make it a practice to talk about this nonsense. Believe it or not, I'm FAIRLY indifferent about gun control policies. I do feel people have the right to protect themselves. But you dont need an AK47 for that.
                        You can't even get a pistol permit in NY if you state "Protection" or "self defense" as a reason for the application.
                        Why cant a responsible owner own an Ak? I know a few people with them and they never killed anyone nor do they intend too

                        Comment


                        • http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...ng-lakers-game
                          lol hes got his ron burgandy mustache

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by dezzzR View Post
                            Why cant a responsible owner own an Ak? I know a few people with them and they never killed anyone nor do they intend too
                            I have 2 friends who own AK47s....just to have them. same thing, they arent violent people, nor are they really gun enthusiasts. they just like to own things.

                            im saying, America is a country of doing everything in excess. this is no different lol
                            Oderint Dum Metuant

                            It's too bad, I'm too good....

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JPizzack View Post
                              I have 2 friends who own AK47s....just to have them. same thing, they arent violent people, nor are they really gun enthusiasts. they just like to own things.

                              im saying, America is a country of doing everything in excess. this is no different lol
                              Thats another thing. If the left really wants to do something about gun violence, why are they going after assault rifles and semiauto rifles? The real problem are handguns. More people were killed by hammers last year than ARs, FRIGGIN HAMMERS!!!!

                              Comment


                              • Because it's politics Dez, it's not about helping the citizens, if they wanted to make the country safer then yes they'd go after hand guns instead of semi autos, they don't want to make us safer though, their motivation is purely votes, and people who don't know anything about guns are scared of semi autos, so banning those guns will result in the most votes gained.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X